More Conservative Vision an Innovation....

[ahinton]

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/

I don't quite get your drift here; you appear to be considering the validity or othewise of comparisons between benefit fraud and the gravest of driving offences, whereas my question (albeit not put to you specifically or directly) was about comparisons of benefit fraud and other financial fraud, in terms both of how they should be punished and the nature and extent of their effect on their victims.

I'm obviously not suggesting that higher sentences should necessarily be dispensed for benefit fraud than for causing death by dangerous driving, but that is surely another issue altogether and, in any case, what surely matters most is (a) the extent to which benefit or other financial fraud can successfully be discovered, prosecuted and punished and (b) how much the state might lose when it isn't and how much it might save when it is; in terms of the latter, increasing prison terms for convicted fraudsters involves the taxpayer in increased expense that can only be offset - if and when it can be offset at all - by the amount of fraudulently obtained fiunds that can be recovered less the cost of their recovery.

The question that remains is whether and to what extent a hike in possible sentences for benefit fraud might discourage potential fraudsters; I wouldn't hold my breath, frankly.

[ahinton]

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.

Broadly speaking, I have few issues with your list, as I have already indicated; my main addition thereto would be in distinguishing those who claim insufficient benefits because they struggle with applications or otherwise recevie less than their full legal entitlement as a consequence of administrative error from those who don't even claim because they don't understand their entitlements; it's hardly a big deal and, in mentioning it at all, I'm not seeking to make it one.

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.

Since I have never suggested that anyone has sought to claim that benefit fraud is the only type of fraud, it is clear that I have not made a "straw man" or indeed any other kind of argument based upon such an assumption; not all fraud is necessarily financial at all but, in terms of such fraud as is financial in nature, my question related specifically to yours - and, for that matter, anyone else's - view as to whether benefit fraud is or should be considered as graver than other kinds of financial fraud.

As to your kind offer of payment, reminded as I am of a violinist of my past acquaintance who once said to me that he'd accept any insult at all as long as it was in cash, let me assure you that there is no need for such generosity on your part but that, if you nevertheless feel moved to exercise some, please don't waste your time and mine and your money on an envelope and a stamp but use instead the bank details that you will find on the Sorabji Archive website (www.sorabji-archive.co.uk, as no doubt you already know) to make a BACS transfer which is free of charge and usually completes almost instantly.

[amateur51]

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.

There's also category 4), people who don't claim benefits to which they are entitled because of other people's use of the term 'scrounger'

[Mr Pee]

There's also category 4), people who don't claim benefits to which they are entitled because of other people's use of the term 'scrounger'

If they were entitled to the benefits, then they wouldn't be scroungers would they? So it would be their own decision not to claim. And if that's what they decide, good luck to them.

[ahinton]

If they were entitled to the benefits, then they wouldn't be scroungers would they? So it would be their own decision not to claim. And if that's what they decide, good luck to them.

No, of course they wouldn't, but am51 did not suggest that they would; what's at issue here is not so much whether any benefit claimant is a "scrounger" but the perception in some quarters, aided and abetted in no small part by certain arms of the media, that the line of distinction between "claimant" and "scrounger" is far thinner than is actually the case.

[eighthobstruction]

I cannot except 12345ving....2 is much more complex option than BO explains....there could be so many more complications that the person would be put back in group 1....getting to the bus stop is 2% of the working day....it is all so much more complicated than that I'm afraid....

[amateur51]

No, of course they wouldn't, but am51 did not suggest that they would; what's at issue here is not so much whether any benefit claimant is a "scrounger" but the perception in some quarters, aided and abetted in no small part by certain arms of the media, that the line of distinction between "claimant" and "scrounger" is far thinner than is actually the case.

I do wonder sometimes if some of our number live in a world of real people, ahinton, such is their apparent dislocation from everyday discourse, experience and concerns.

[amateur51]

I cannot except 12345ving....2 is much more complex option than BO explains....there could be so many more complications that the person would be put back in group 1....getting to the bus stop is 2% of the working day....it is all so much more complicated than that I'm afraid....

Indeed it is, eighth, indeed it is.

[ahinton]

I cannot except 12345ving....2 is much more complex option than BO explains....there could be so many more complications that the person would be put back in group 1....getting to the bus stop is 2% of the working day....it is all so much more complicated than that I'm afraid....

It is indeed, but I think that he has at least the basis of a valid series of categorisations.

That said, the question of (a) how effective financially the dispensing of costly increased prison sentences for convicted benefit fraudsters might be in net terms and (b) how benefit fraud is or should be perceived as compared to other kinds of financial fraud remain unsnawered as yet; issues of what is the case and what is perceived to be the case are a fundamental component of this, especially where the term "scrounger" is loosely bandied about.

I wonder if I might be deemed to be a "scrounger" in some people' eyes, even though I was notified by DWP in writing of my entitlement to receive a benefit that I had not claimed, namely the winter fuel allowance; I claimed it only because and when asked and I was overpaid, a fact that I did not realise until some time later but, when notifying DWP of this fact, it insisted that the benefit received was correct.

Also, an acquaintance of mine received a similar written approach about his impending entitlement to state retirement benefit and, having completed documentation accurately and completely as requested, began to receive it, despite actual entitlement not being due until one year later; on realising and then notifying this, the benefit was withdrawn and he repaid the erroneously credited amount promptly but when, the following year, he received further documentation in respect of his genuine entitlement and completed it as previously, he began to receive payment in excess of thos to which he was entitled.

It's clear from examples like these - of which there are all too many more - that benefit fraud, indefensible as it is, might well just be the tip of the iceberg.

[Beef Oven!]

There's also category 4), people who don't claim benefits to which they are entitled because of other people's use of the term 'scrounger'

No, they are not benefits claimants. They exercise their right to go with their conscience. Some members of my family are like this. Silly, but it's up to them I suppose.

[Beef Oven!]

I cannot except 12345ving....2 is much more complex option than BO explains....there could be so many more complications that the person would be put back in group 1....getting to the bus stop is 2% of the working day....it is all so much more complicated than that I'm afraid....

Nah, it's really as easy as 1,2,3......

I'm not saying much anyway, so why would it be more complicated?

[eighthobstruction]

I'm not picking a fight Beef....

....the example you quote in 2 is far too simplistic....most people on ESA (which 2 would be)are on it temporarily....there are other (quite a large number) have far more complicated prognosis....a temporary ESA claimer is likely to be reassessed ever 3-6 months....the longer term ESA claimer every 12 months -2years)....getting to the bus stop is just a tiny part of that persons day....I haven't got time to spoon feed you, when I think it is obvious that many peoples situations medically are far more complicated than the one you offer....

....

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not picking a fight Beef....

....the example you quote in 2 is far too simplistic....most people on ESA (which 2 would be)are on it temporarily....there are other (quite a large number) have far more complicated prognosis....a temporary ESA claimer is likely to be reassessed ever 3-6 months....the longer term ESA claimer every 12 months -2years)....getting to the bus stop is just a tiny part of that persons day....I haven't got time to spoon feed you, when I think it is obvious that many peoples situations medically are far more complicated than the one you offer....

....

Haven't got time to spoon feed you eighth, but you're missing the point.

You've gone into claimant/claimant advocate mode without understanding what I've said.

The best of us can't see the wood for the trees sometimes.

I know full well about the scenario you describe as I routinely assist someone precisely in that sort of position.

[ahinton]

Haven't got time to spoon feed you eighth, but you're missing the point.

You've gone into claimant/claimant advocate mode without understanding what I've said.

The best of us can't see the wood for the trees sometimes.

I know full well about the scenario you describe as I routinely assist someone precisely in that sort of position.

All the more reason, then, why you might have been expected to be capable of rather greater visionary success in the arboretum than some, but it seems not...

[eighthobstruction]

All the more reason, then, why you might have been expected to be capable of rather greater visionary success in the arboretum than some, but it seems not...

....This is a good day for rebuttals....<most excellent ha ha>