More Conservative Vision an Innovation....

[amateur51]

Do you have the figures to back up that claim?

If a potential and legitimate claimant really needs and is entitled to the money, then they would go ahead and claim it. Nobody need know except themselves and the benefit office. If they decide not to claim, for whatever reason, then their need can't have been that urgent in the first place, whatever the Daily Mail might or might not have said.

Which claim?

You'll find that most CABx (even in Chichester) run regular 'benefit take-up' campaigns, trying to encourage people to claim what is theirs by right because of the low take-up. These are often funded by Local Authorities so that they can take the credit (and of course because they're genuinely concerned about unnecessary poverty in many cases.)

[Beef Oven!]

If a government is going to amend laws about how various convicted financial fraudsters may be punished, they can't take the politics out of it becuase that IS the politics! The initial focus of such amendments needs to be upon the fraudsters, be they benefit or other or both, hopefully for the ultimate benefit of society as a whole.

No. The politics has to be taken out of it. Whatever side of the fence your on, a baddie is a baddie.

[ahinton]

Do you have the figures to back up that claim?

If a potential and legitimate claimant really needs and is entitled to the money, then they would go ahead and claim it. Nobody need know except themselves and the benefit office. If they decide not to claim, for whatever reason, then their need can't have been that urgent in the first place, whatever the Daily Mail might or might not have said.

Whilst some of what you write here is not necessarily wrong in all cases, the facts (as distinct from my opinion or anyone else's) demonstrate that not all who are entitled to claim state benefits claim them and not all who are entitled to claim them claim as much as they're entitled to claim; the same goes for tax reliefs and other state facilities. There are a number of reasons for that, some of which hinge on potential claimant's lack of due and full understanding and patience, as well as the poor advice that some receive and othes of which relae to administrative error; the proportion of this latter to the rest and to amounts lost to wilfully fraudulent claims are accounted for in part in the article posted by TS and in the links within that article. I don't think that many people who are correctly advised about the amounts and types of state benefit to which they are entitled actually "decide" not to claim all or part of their entitlement and, if that were the case, government would be obliged by law to maintain and publish statistical records of these.

[Beef Oven!]

Which claim?

You'll find that most CABx (even in Chichester) run regular 'benefit take-up' campaigns, trying to encourage people to claim what is theirs by right because of the low take-up. These are often funded by Local Authorities so that they can take the credit (and of course because they're genuinely concerned about unnecessary poverty in many cases.)

And there's your proof MrPee!

The local DHS is gonna have its budget cut, so it goes out and drums up support! God give me strength!!!

[teamsaint]

I'm confused. You tell me that's what the government saythey are doing, now you say they are actually doing it?

I am talking about how you see it.

The government are just out to make ordinary people totally compliant with their trickle up economics.

[ahinton]

No. The politics has to be taken out of it. Whatever side of the fence your on, a baddie is a baddie.

You're missing the point. No one is suggesting that the government is considering the passage of legislation that would enable the conviction of fraudsters that have previously been able to get away with their fraud unpunished (as disticnt from undetected); what's being considered here is the extent and nature of the punishments available for those whom it's already agreed are - to use your term - "baddies".

[amateur51]

And there's your proof MrPee!

The local DHS is gonna have its budget cut, so it goes out and drums up support! God give me strength!!!

Any proof?

No.

[ahinton]

And there's your proof MrPee!

The local DHS is gonna have its budget cut, so it goes out and drums up support! God give me strength!!!

That provides no proof of anything to anyone in this matter; what it does instead is point out that, in certain cases, taxpayer-subsidised organisations such as CABs provide support to help legitimate benefit claimants claim their full entitlements and, in some such cases, those organisations' work in this is part-funded by the monies that local authorities extract from their taxpayers. If that "proves" anything at all, it is that such claimants often need that kind of help, doubtless as a consequence of both the overbearing complexities of the benefits system and its claims procedures and the administrative failures that occur as a result of these.

[Beef Oven!]

Any proof?

No.

Proof? It's what you meant, so it's up to you to provide the proof.

[Beef Oven!]

I am talking about how you see it.

The government are just out to make ordinary people totally compliant with their trickle up economics.

Get on with your work ts, hit those targets and get trickling up.

[amateur51]

That provides no proof of anything to anyone in this matter; what it does instead is point out that, in certain cases, taxpayer-subsidised organisations such as CABs provide support to help legitimate benefit claimants claim their full entitlements and, in some such cases, those organisations' work in this is part-funded by the monies that local authorities extract from their taxpayers. If that "proves" anything at all, it is that such claimants often need that kind of help, doubtless as a consequence of both the overbearing complexities of the benefits system and its claims procedures and the administrative failures that occur as a result of these.

CABx have to get their funding from all over the place, including several of the charitable trusts that I used to work for. These days they often have to enter into contracts with Local Authorities too, often with punitive rerstrictions. Funding from Trusts can go some way to easing those restrictions.

[amateur51]

Proof? It's what you meant, so it's up to you to provide the proof.

Proof of your assertion

[amateur51]

Get on with your work ts, hit those targets and get trickling up.

I wonder if the raki is flowing already at this hour of the day

[Resurrection Man]

They're potential benefit claimants who are bullied away from claiming by the Daily Mail et al's use of the word scroungers.

This is not a new phenomenon - lots of poor people have denied themselves access to 'charity' because of the attitudes of others.

That is true and I can sympathise to a certain extent. But this has nothing to do with people who cheat the system. How can I put it any simpler? Someone who self-employs himself, say, and earns a good whack and yet claims unemployment benefit. That is called theft. Surely you're not going to turn round to me and say that it is not?

The other point that I don't think has been mentioned is that they are looking especially to target middle-class and professional benefit fraudsters or those who are in a position, for whatever reason, to abuse the system.

[Beef Oven!]

I wonder if the raki is flowing already at this hour of the day

To lead by example in the Beef Oven household, I am not taking alcohol for a whole year to prove that just as much enjoyment can be had in life without it. My children, having enormous faith in me have bet me £500 I can't do it. Seven weeks in, I'm not sure whether to use the money on upgrading to an iPhone 5s, or get a Genelec sub-woofer. The kids are gutted sensing impending financial loss (I'll be taking the money).

Needless to say, the last raki I tasted is merely a memory now!