More Conservative Vision an Innovation....

[ahinton]

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

It isn't wrong, but you statement has ample truth in it, of course. "Society at large" includes those very benefit claimants! Because taxpayers have to fund these benefits (which, let's not forget, include state retirement benefit and no one seems to be accusing recipients of that of being "scroungers"), they lose out, certainly, but then so do bona fide claimants when one reason for cuts in benefits is the amount going out on fraud. That said, the amount lost in fraudulent benefit claims, whilst unacceptable, is relatively small compared to that lost on admin cock-ups.

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.

You omit from your list those who claim insufficient benefits because they don't apply correctly or fully understand the nature and level of their entitlements and it would not be unreasonable in principle also to include those entitled to benefits who don't claim them for similar reasons.

[Beef Oven!]

It isn't wrong, but you statement has ample truth in it, of course. "Society at large" includes those very benefit claimants! Because taxpayers have to fund these benefits (which, let's not forget, include state retirement benefit and no one seems to be accusing recipients of that of being "scroungers"), they lose out, certainly, but then so do bona fide claimants when one reason for cuts in benefits is the amount going out on fraud. That said, the amount lost in fraudulent benefit claims, whilst unacceptable, is relatively small compared to that lost on admin cock-ups.


You omit from your list those who claim insufficient benefits because they don't apply correctly or fully understand the nature and level of their entitlements and it would not be unreasonable in principle also to include those entitled to benefits who don't claim them for similar reasons.

No ahinton, wriggle as much as you want, but your presumption was wrong. Benefits claimants are not the principal stake-holders holders in this, and therefore not the principal victims - it's all of us.

Regarding your remarks about people who claim insufficient benefits, they are covered in the first group and are not omitted.

[MrGongGong]

Benefits claimants are not the principal stake-holders holders in this, and therefore not the principal victims - it's all of us.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is (and I don't know anyone who is suggesting that it's OK to commit fraud) is that when it's spouted by those who should know better it encourages those who assume that EVERYONE who has a disability or receives benefits to treat people badly.
Compared to not being able to walk each of us "loosing" a bit of dosh is maybe a small price to pay ?
Some things are seemingly counter-intuitive.......... putting people in prison is hardly a way of saving money

[ahinton]

No ahinton, wriggle as much as you want, but your presumption was wrong. Benefits claimants are not the principal stake-holders holders in this, and therefore not the principal victims - it's all of us.

Regarding your remarks about people who claim insufficient benefits, they are covered in the first group and are not omitted.

There's no need for wriggling on my part and what I've written is unequivocal so cannot be described as though there is one; indeed, in now introducing the term "principal", you could be said to be wriggling yourself! Benefit cuts are in part determined by what's deemed to be available to fund benefits and, to the extent that this sum is reduced by the total amount of fraudulent claims, climants are indeed among the victims; in so saying, I am not - as I already clarified - suggesting that the taxpayer is not also a victim although, when you write "all of us", you must by defenition be including benefit claimants!

As to your second paragraph, that is not clear from the way you listed people but I will accept that this is what you meant.

Benefit fraud is not the only kind of financial fraud that affects many people, including taxpayers; would you nevertheless see it as in any sense "worse" than any other kind?

[Resurrection Man]

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is (and I don't know anyone who is suggesting that it's OK to commit fraud) is that when it's spouted by those who should know better it encourages those who assume that EVERYONE who has a disability or receives benefits to treat people badly.
Compared to not being able to walk each of us "loosing" a bit of dosh is maybe a small price to pay ?
Some things are seemingly counter-intuitive.......... putting people in prison is hardly a way of saving money

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the very simple fact that there are people who fiddle the system. They steal. Theft.

It has nothing at all to do with the broader issue of those who do need benefits. By continually dragging up emotive sentences such as 'compared to not being able to walk' etc you belittle the main (and sometimes) valid thrust of your argument.

We could post a thread about the sky being blue and you would somehow twist the thread around to saying that the sky might be blue but for many people getting up this morning the only thing that is blue are their hands from lack of heat. Both facts are true but the second has zero relevance to each other (apart from in your own mind).

[MrGongGong]

It has nothing at all to do with the broader issue of those who do need benefits.

IT has everything to do with the issue and how it is dealt with .......
try reading what people actually say ?

like

(and I don't know anyone who is suggesting that it's OK to commit fraud)

?

[ahinton]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the very simple fact that there are people who fiddle the system. They steal. Theft.

Of course - but MrGG accepts that and has said as much, quite clearly. I have also asked Mr Oven whether he thinks that benefit fraud is in any sense any "worse" than any other kind of financial fraud that likewise adversely affects vast numbers of people; I might ask you the same question. It's also important to get this in proportion in terms of the extent of loss through fraud and that of loss through administrative error; member Richard Barrett has posted official statistics about this which I cannot immediately retrieve just now, but they make enlightening reading without in any sense undermining the gravity of benefit fraud. I have said that I believe that such fraud should be treated as severely as any other kind of financial fraud when it is prosecuted.

[MrGongGong]

I have said that I believe that such fraud should be treated as severely as any other kind of financial fraud when it is prosecuted.

aaah but that's a "red herring" isn't it ?
like it's somehow a "red herring" to compare one type of crime with another ?
I'm sure our learned legal friend will know more than any of us about this ?

So you get a maximum of 5 years for "causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving"
and 10 for fiddling your benefits ?

Seems fine to me (:yikes:) a crime is a crime isn't it ? (or it is in the Resurrected Peeworld !)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

[Beef Oven!]

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is (and I don't know anyone who is suggesting that it's OK to commit fraud) is that when it's spouted by those who should know better it encourages those who assume that EVERYONE who has a disability or receives benefits to treat people badly.
Compared to not being able to walk each of us "loosing" a bit of dosh is maybe a small price to pay ?
Some things are seemingly counter-intuitive.......... putting people in prison is hardly a way of saving money

It's not rhetoric. And there is nothing wrong with it. This is a serious challenge for contemporary society (how we help our most vulnerable and unfortunate brothers and sisters) and there is no place cavalier polemic. It may help middle class people feel better about their conscience, though.

[Beef Oven!]

aaah but that's a "red herring" isn't it ?
like it's somehow a "red herring" to compare one type of crime with another ?
I'm sure our learned legal friend will know more than any of us about this ?

So you get a maximum of 5 years for "causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving"
and 10 for fiddling your benefits ?

Seems fine to me (:yikes:) a crime is a crime isn't it ? (or it is in the Resurrected Peeworld !)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...erate_driving/

A red herring from your straw man? You are confusing each other.

[Beef Oven!]

There's no need for wriggling on my part and what I've written is unequivocal so cannot be described as though there is one; indeed, in now introducing the term "principal", you could be said to be wriggling yourself! Benefit cuts are in part determined by what's deemed to be available to fund benefits and, to the extent that this sum is reduced by the total amount of fraudulent claims, climants are indeed among the victims; in so saying, I am not - as I already clarified - suggesting that the taxpayer is not also a victim although, when you write "all of us", you must by defenition be including benefit claimants!

As to your second paragraph, that is not clear from the way you listed people but I will accept that this is what you meant.

Benefit fraud is not the only kind of financial fraud that affects many people, including taxpayers; would you nevertheless see it as in any sense "worse" than any other kind?

Ahinton, you introduced the 'principal' theme, not me.

As regards to my second paragraph, it's clear. Anybody who is entitled to benefits, but struggles with the application is in group one. Anyone who is attempting to engage in fraud, but doesn't know how to fill the forms in is in group two, and people who might be able to solve their financial problems in other ways and haven't exhausted all their options, but can't fill the forms in properly are in group three.

P.S. no one has said that benefit fraud is the only type of fraud. I think it's yet another one of your straw man arguments that you are keen on. I'm so certain you'll not find such a statement that, if I'm wrong, I'm prepared to write out a cheque in your favour for £3 and post it to you.

[MrGongGong]

And there is nothing wrong with it. This is a serious challenge for contemporary society (how we help our most vulnerable and unfortunate brothers and sisters) and there is no place cavalier polemic. .

Indeed this is a serious challenge and one which I don't see anyone in politics engaging with...... apart from those who seek to make life more difficult for those with enough to deal with already ! (ATOS anyone ? )

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed this is a serious challenge and one which I don't see anyone in politics engaging with...... apart from those who seek to make life more difficult for those with enough to deal with already ! (ATOS anyone ? )

I threw you a lifeline for sensible debate and your response is another one of those straw man arguments that people seem to go in for around here.

[MrGongGong]

I threw you a lifeline for sensible debate and your response is another one of those straw man arguments that people seem to go in for around here.

So tell me, WHO in UK politics is doing anything about this ?

[Beef Oven!]

So tell me, WHO in UK politics is doing anything about this ?

What is to be done?