Following on from the somewhat heated debate last week whereby I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished, disabled, special needs.. comes this heartwarming story.
A benefits fraudster who claimed he was bed-ridden yet was filmed dancing at a wedding has been jailed.
Mohamed Bouzalim, 37, cheated the authorities out of nearly £400,000, Isleworth Crown Court heard. He will serve nearly seven years for 11 counts of deception, fraud and assisting illegal entry into the UK.
The court heard he had also falsely claimed asylum saying he was an Afghan who had been tortured by the Taliban when in fact he was from Morocco. He told the authorities he had been tortured, that the Taliban had murdered his father and his mother was dead. But according to the UK Border Agency (UKBA), he was an illegal migrant from north Africa.
Over the next decade, he used false names, passports, driving licences, and other ID cards to claim almost £400,000 in benefits including money to pay family members to be his full-time carers.
At the height of the scam, he was receiving £66,000 a year tax free and managed to do a masters degree and later study for a PhD at The School of Oriental and African Studies in central London.
Bouzalim pretended he could not walk and was in need of 24-hour care.
He was provided with a specially converted ground floor, two bedroom council flat in Kilburn, north-west London, with wheelchair access.
But during an investigation, Metropolitan Police officers secretly filmed Bouzalim walking unaided from his flat and down the street. When they raided the purpose-built property they found a video of him dancing at his wedding in Morocco in 2009.
Robert Coxhead, senior investigating officer from the UKBA Criminal and Financial Investigation team, said: "Mohamed Bouzalim was a top class fraudster and con artist. His whole life was a lie."The agency added that it was because of the "overwhelming weight of evidence" including the wedding video, that he admitted his crimes.
He received £137,602 from north London's Camden Council to pay for his carers, around £70,000 in housing benefit, £60,000 from the Independent Living Fund, £74,000 in income support and £15,000 disability living allowance.
Instead of his parents being dead, they in fact came to the UK on visitor visas and then allegedly acted as his carers. They now live in London and claim pension tax credits and housing benefit, totalling about £2,000 a month. But Bouzalim also owned a property in Leyton, east London, which he rented out for £1,200 a month.
Bouzalim, who speaks six languages including the Afghan language Pashto, was given exceptional leave to remain when he arrived in the UK in 2001.
He was granted indefinite leave to remain in April 2007 and granted British Citizenship in June 2009.
At Isleworth Crown Court, he admitted 11 counts of deception, fraud and assisting illegal entry into the UK.
Three other family members pleaded guilty to defrauding Camden Council.
Camden Council and the Department for Work and Pensions have both been contacted by BBC London but have not responded regarding the case.
Well, I don't know about you lot, but this really warms my cockles. I feel all warm and fuzzy to know that I work for a living to pay for the sick, lame and lazy.
In short, I am sick of seeing demonstrations about NHS reforms, disability reforms, and wellfare reforms when quite clearly, as the above story shows, they need fething reforming! And secondly, is it just me, or does it seem far too easy to ram your fist into the state cookie jar?
So my question is, do you agree or disagree with Mr Cameron's recent proposals, such as a cap on child and state benefits?
Out of curiosity, are you lumping the sick, lame and lazy as being equally undeserving or just stating in general terms those your taxes go to support?
And as always, any system is not perfect, it can be exploited, people will find a way, just because some game it doesn't make it a failure, etc etc etc ad nauseum.
mattyrm wrote:So my question is, do you agree or disagree with Mr Cameron's recent proposals, such as a cap on child and state benefits?
The problem isn't the benefits themselves, it is that people abuse the system. The current government want to address the high amount of money paid in benefits by cutting that to everyone, which seems a ham fisted way of dealing with fraudsters because a lot of people who are in genuine need get punished.
Child benefit should be capped, people earning over £50K don't need it IMO, but the government are going for disability benefits and others, and those genuinely relying upon them really need them. I don't see why they should be punished because the authorities are too incompetent to imprison and/or deport false claimants.
The other problem is that benefits are not much less than a minimum wage job. The government are using this as a means to rationalise cutting benefits saying they are too high and encourage people to get jobs. Problem is that there aren't many jobs around so it isn't as easy as that. Also the reason that there isn't much of a gap between benefits and minimum wage is not because benefits are too high but because jobs are so badly paid. But will a conservative government do anything about the minimum wage and workers rights? feth no of course not, they are all in bed with the banks and big business.
We got them here in the States too bro..what we should be doing is weekly surprise inspections. If you say your bedridden and we walk in and your mowing the lawn well you just fethed your self. But you'll never know when were coming.
mattyrm wrote: Well, I don't know about you lot, but this really warms my cockles. I feel all warm and fuzzy to know that I work for a living to pay for the sick, lame and lazy.
This man is clearly neither sick, lame or lazy. He's a liar and a thief who should have his citizenship revoked, his property consficated and be deported.
People on benefits are always an easy target for the tories. I admit that benefit fraud should be tackled, but when you compare benefit fraud to tax fraud, then tax fraud is a far bigger problem. Of course, it's easier to target those at the bottom than those at the top who dodge the taxman, especially when some of them are friends of this current government - Branson, Green etc etc
You have to admit though, the guy is a genius. He speaks six languages and extorted almost a half million pound out of the government. You have to figure that even in a decently structured system he could have conned money out of the social system. Maybe they haven't found the six special needs people he's got locked up in his basement while he's cashing their cheques too.
If you make a system, some people will be able to exploit it to their benefit.
Question: Should we create systems that punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few, or should we instead focus on accomplishing the goal of the system and ignore the few that exploit it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
porkchop806 wrote:We got them here in the States too bro..what we should be doing is weekly surprise inspections. If you say your bedridden and we walk in and your mowing the lawn well you just fethed your self. But you'll never know when were coming.
Great idea. Do you mind if we raise your property tax by $25 a year to do it?
If you make a system, some people will be able to exploit it to their benefit.
Exactly, and thus we arrive at the crux of the argument. I believe we should make it harder to get benefits, and make them pay less.
Liberals argue it should be easier, and involve weightier payments.
I disagree with them.
I've got no problem with easier, as long as they increase the oversight into what's really going on.
No, i don't have a easy idea on how to create oversight. random daily checks on random individuals
receiving aid maybe.
Easy E wrote:Question: Should we create systems that punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few, or should we instead focus on accomplishing the goal of the system and ignore the few that exploit it?
You're assuming that the bulk of the system goes to people who legitimately deserve benefits. This may not be true.
You have to admit though, the guy is a genius. He speaks six languages and extorted almost a half million pound out of the government. You have to figure that even in a decently structured system he could have conned money out of the social system. Maybe they haven't found the six special needs people he's got locked up in his basement while he's cashing their cheques too.
Nice....I say again...Nice on how you slipped that in and noone else caught it yet lol
mattyrm wrote: Following on from the somewhat heated debate last week whereby I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished, disabled, special needs.. comes this heartwarming story.
A benefits fraudster who claimed he was bed-ridden yet was filmed dancing at a wedding has been jailed.
Mohamed Bouzalim, 37, cheated the authorities out of nearly £400,000, Isleworth Crown Court heard. He will serve nearly seven years for 11 counts of deception, fraud and assisting illegal entry into the UK.
The court heard he had also falsely claimed asylum saying he was an Afghan who had been tortured by the Taliban when in fact he was from Morocco. He told the authorities he had been tortured, that the Taliban had murdered his father and his mother was dead. But according to the UK Border Agency (UKBA), he was an illegal migrant from north Africa.
Over the next decade, he used false names, passports, driving licences, and other ID cards to claim almost £400,000 in benefits including money to pay family members to be his full-time carers.
At the height of the scam, he was receiving £66,000 a year tax free and managed to do a masters degree and later study for a PhD at The School of Oriental and African Studies in central London.
Bouzalim pretended he could not walk and was in need of 24-hour care.
He was provided with a specially converted ground floor, two bedroom council flat in Kilburn, north-west London, with wheelchair access.
But during an investigation, Metropolitan Police officers secretly filmed Bouzalim walking unaided from his flat and down the street. When they raided the purpose-built property they found a video of him dancing at his wedding in Morocco in 2009.
Robert Coxhead, senior investigating officer from the UKBA Criminal and Financial Investigation team, said: "Mohamed Bouzalim was a top class fraudster and con artist. His whole life was a lie."The agency added that it was because of the "overwhelming weight of evidence" including the wedding video, that he admitted his crimes.
He received £137,602 from north London's Camden Council to pay for his carers, around £70,000 in housing benefit, £60,000 from the Independent Living Fund, £74,000 in income support and £15,000 disability living allowance.
Instead of his parents being dead, they in fact came to the UK on visitor visas and then allegedly acted as his carers. They now live in London and claim pension tax credits and housing benefit, totalling about £2,000 a month. But Bouzalim also owned a property in Leyton, east London, which he rented out for £1,200 a month.
Bouzalim, who speaks six languages including the Afghan language Pashto, was given exceptional leave to remain when he arrived in the UK in 2001.
He was granted indefinite leave to remain in April 2007 and granted British Citizenship in June 2009.
At Isleworth Crown Court, he admitted 11 counts of deception, fraud and assisting illegal entry into the UK.
Three other family members pleaded guilty to defrauding Camden Council.
Camden Council and the Department for Work and Pensions have both been contacted by BBC London but have not responded regarding the case.
Well, I don't know about you lot, but this really warms my cockles. I feel all warm and fuzzy to know that I work for a living to pay for the sick, lame and lazy.
In short, I am sick of seeing demonstrations about NHS reforms, disability reforms, and wellfare reforms when quite clearly, as the above story shows, they need fething reforming! And secondly, is it just me, or does it seem far too easy to ram your fist into the state cookie jar?
So my question is, do you agree or disagree with Mr Cameron's recent proposals, such as a cap on child and state benefits?
So one crook is representative of all receiving care?
By that same token I can probable google and find any number of stories of soldiers doing illegal/horrible things. Does that mean all soldiers are deserving of ridicule?
Of course not.
Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...
There is a world of difference between someone genuinely crippled and this con man. (What? No one checked his medical records? No one checked in with his doctor? They just took his word for it?)
Punish the con man for being a con man. Don't punish the cripple for being a cripple.
You make a great point CT, but there seriously needs to be much better monitoring, inspecting or some kind of oversight.
Just think of the waste that could be eliminated. If you incurred some additional costs, the waste you eliminate could more
than cover them.
I've known people all through out my life that have had some form of welfare that literally saved them from fates much worse.
and they didn't make it a career or way of life. Bad seeds in anything sour the impression of anything they are a part of. we shouldn't
throw out everyone because of a few scammers.
CT GAMER wrote:So one crook is representative of all receiving care?
Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...
ONE. I'd laugh in your face of that were possible. I don't even live in the UK and I know welfare fraud is a problem, more than that the system has problems outside of fraud like say the marriage penalty. So married couple defraud the system on the regular.
PTSD is 50% disability
Loss of movement in left shoulder and chronic pain now is 20%
Both feet shattered and no longer to run is like 20%
waiting on my rating but seems 80%...is a crazy mathmatical scheme to figure out multiple claims.
I can still walk, drive, have sex, drink..well after they lessen the drugs, work and upkeep of my home. I deserve my 80% plus retirement a month but I paid that price to get there.
Each year I have to reeval to maintain my disability pay at 80% and since I won't be active duty any longer I'm not going to "tough it out".
Does this make me a bad person to?
Point is if VA require me to reeval each year then why not everybody else since its gov't money?
So rather than decreasing the benefits, shouldn't you want to increase the regulation? I certainly would agree that effective regulation is needed to cut down on fraud. But then again, given the inherent and irrational fear many people have regarding anything regulatory, I'm not sure how that'll be responded to.
The response will be bad because the perception probaly involve an individual medical history. HIPPA will be used to block any inquire into a person physical/mental condition.
Jihadin wrote:The response will be bad because the perception probaly involve an individual medical history. HIPPA will be used to block any inquire into a person physical/mental condition.
lol, sorry for the confusion-- I was responding to AustinT's post, not yours.
Jihadin wrote:The response will be bad because the perception probaly involve an individual medical history. HIPPA will be used to block any inquire into a person physical/mental condition.
lol, sorry for the confusion-- I was responding to AustinT's post, not yours.
I don't remember saying that they should reduce benefits. The UK has a much more comprehensive social system than we do, weather right or wrong many depend on it. The problem that it needs to be reformed not expanded, not cut but reformed and then funds adjusted.
Easy E wrote:Question: Should we create systems that punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few, or should we instead focus on accomplishing the goal of the system and ignore the few that exploit it?
You're assuming that the bulk of the system goes to people who legitimately deserve benefits. This may not be true.
The original point is a false dichotomy as it is possible to accomplish the core goal and without having to ignore benefit fraud.
Under the UK system, investigations of benefit fraud, and other stats, seem to show that the great majority of benefits go to people who are legally entitled to them.
The question of whether they deserve them is another matter.
I know someone who did a backflip of a mountain whilst skiing broke his back and can't move anymore, he has trouble with getting money and has been wrongly cut off plenty of times.
So you affect the poeple that really need it, I better solution would be to make them have Incremental payment, starting off very low to cover the costs of surprise visit at 2 Month intervals, after passing them or whatever they get more pay until they get up to what we class as normal now.
I think better background checks ans Immigration laws are what are to blame, I'm all for multiculture but not at our expense or when it promotes illegal activities. Forged passports and the like.
Are you trolling? Or would you rather, instead of paying x amount to help people who're disabled, their loved ones worked less in order to look after them full time, thereby denying the economy of 2x wealth?
Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.
InquisitorVaron wrote:I know someone who did a backflip of a mountain whilst skiing broke his back and can't move anymore, he has trouble with getting money and has been wrongly cut off plenty of times.
So you affect the poeple that really need it, I better solution would be to make them have Incremental payment, starting off very low to cover the costs of surprise visit at 2 Month intervals, after passing them or whatever they get more pay until they get up to what we class as normal now.
I think better background checks ans Immigration laws are what are to blame, I'm all for multiculture but not at our expense or when it promotes illegal activities. Forged passports and the like.
Wait he did a back flip skiing and gets paid? See that is self inflicted. I see a need for a "Darwin" regulation. If proven to be half slowed you get squat.
Medium of Death wrote:We can't take care of our elderly taxpayers but we can accommodate this foreign faux-cripple and other benefit sponging scumbags... oh and junkies...
Its all about empowerment.
If an elderly person is not getting what they should be getting they get precious little support.
Anyone who can claim an '-ism' can.
I know a case of a disabled guy while while able bodied and being fethed over by an employer could do nothing about it. Could he get representation, only if he paid for it. Then get got diagnosed with MS. Instant change, same problem but different rights entirely. Free representation because he was suddenly disadvantaged.
We all have the same rights, but those are just words. Empowerment of those rights comes from having minority status or a chequebook.
If someone claims to be a 'tortured by Taliban asylum seeker' they get extra leeway, because if you dont believe them they can get a lawyer real easy. The average taxpayer can only get this if they pay for it, your empoyer knows this, your energy provider knows this your bank knows this etc. I have seen very nasty constructive dismissal cases turn into a pucker factor for the company concerned because the person they were fething over suddenly got an unrelated illness and changed status to disabled.
Jihadin wrote:Point is if VA require me to reeval each year then why not everybody else since its gov't money?
Well, I can't speak for any other recipients of "government money", but my wife is on disability, and she does have to re-eval every so often to remain eligible - we just had to this year, but I don't recall for how long it lasts. Maybe it's different for non federal employees?
Orlanth wrote:If an elderly person is not getting what they should be getting they get precious little support.
That's the opposite problem that the US has.
Currently our elderly population is too powerful, politically... social security is basically untouchable because of greedy geriatrics being unconcerned with future generations (Amongst other reasons, obviously).
Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.
Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...
So one crook is representative of all receiving care?
By that same token I can probable google and find any number of stories of soldiers doing illegal/horrible things. Does that mean all soldiers are deserving of ridicule?
Of course not.
Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...
Considering you seem to like attempting to ridicule me about "common sense" you dont appear to be displaying any.
Your post doesnt even make any sense, let alone "common" sense. What on earth has the soldier analogy got to do with anything I have spoken about?
When did I, or would anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, say, or even hint that "So one crook is representative of all receiving care?"
I didn't say that. I didn't even hint it. So who are you arguing with? Yourself?
Read my posts properly in future, then you dont have to infer that I said things that I didnt, and argue with yourself. For your benefit however I shall type out my feelings for you very clearly below.
The above story is proof that the state can and does support people with special needs and disabilities. Therefore, I believe that the current system is more than adequate, and people are complaining about the system not being generous enough when in my eyes it clearly is and funds are readily available for people in need.
Simple.
Now you can disagree with me on that point if you wish, I would be intrigued to hear evidence to the contrary and you might even change my mind. I'm always open for a stirring debate, and the plus side of this is that now we can argue about something I actually said!
Perhaps if they'd been allowed to sort out some kind of identity card, then this sort of thing could of been clamped down on. As people have already said, any system is open to abuse, none is 100% perfect. You will also find that alot of stories that the British press print are designed to highlight the bad bits, just to back up their own agenda.
As an aside I have a step daughter who went down with ME when she was 7, she is now 23, and has suffered in various ways with it ever since. I'm dreading seeing what happens when the new reviews take hold, it was bad enough before.
So one crook is representative of all receiving care?
By that same token I can probable google and find any number of stories of soldiers doing illegal/horrible things. Does that mean all soldiers are deserving of ridicule?
Of course not.
Come on Mattrym, at least pretend to apply a little common sense to these discussions...
Considering you seem to like attempting to ridicule me about "common sense" you dont appear to be displaying any.
Your post doesnt even make any sense, let alone "common" sense. What on earth has the soldier analogy got to do with anything I have spoken about?
...
Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.
Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.
Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.
The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."
I linked the story because I think it goes some way to proving my belief that we DO provide acceptable levels of social care, because a guy who wasnt even a British citizen was given a two bedroomed flat, that was specially fitted for him as he had (fake) disabilities, thus proving that there are adequate measures in place to ensure that people with special needs ARE cared/provided for. That was the point of the thread, and the title of the thread.
If my thread was called "Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants" you might have a point, but it isn't.
As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.
Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.
Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.
Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...
The system is designed to get the post possible results even if those results are negative.
Look at unemployment and their departments.
Unemployment is vast in the UK, and yet it is a success to process claimants in the minimum amount of time. Job centre workers are not employed to find claimants work, even though they have a vast range of jobs on offer, a large percentage of UK vacancies are displayed in jobcentres.
The system isn't geared up to pushing employment. Take away a right to unemployment benefits and you get passed onto other welfare structures. The system encourages options such as pointless training and schemes to cut 'actual' jobless figures, even though claimants are still getting paid every fortnight.
Even if a Jobcentre sends along dross to fill a vacancy the Jobcentre takes no blame.
The same goes for welfare, These public servants are employed to get people on benefits and to process their claims. There is no real responsibility to verify claims, only to get them on their way. You think the workers who process bogus claims get blamed for doing poor work? Nope.
No one need take ownership of an issue or even a case.
I dare anyone who works in the UK to visit a jobcentre any day of the week and see how many staff are there, vs claimants. look at how long the signing process takes. Go see an employment agency and see the difference.
It's no wonder people con the system. the Employess are not held responsible for the loss of thousands of £. Its ridiculous.
As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.
Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.
No one needs to put words in your mouth, you supply a ready source...
As with CT, you are aware of some of my political beliefs and disagree with them, have simultaneously decided I am far more right wing than I actually am, and are inventing an issue that I didnt say and don't believe as it is easier to tear down. It's a big fat strawman.
Only an absolute moron would think that somebody like Mohammed Barazin is a "typical" benefit claimant, and that almost everyone on disability is "faking it", and that is precisely why I didn't say it.
No one needs to put words in your mouth, you supply a ready source...
As do we all, we post messages on the website using words.
Once again I am at a loss as to the point of your post?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Joey wrote:
purplefood wrote:I'm all for reformation...
That and harsher sentencing for those who cheat the system. Though it would depend on magnitude as well.
Not saying that people who commit benefit fraud should be punished, and clearly they should, but terms of absolute numbers it's small fry compared to tax evasion by the wealthy.
Stop injecting common sense into internet hate-rants...
It's okay, I've been completely ignored anyway.
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?
Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?
Mr. Burning wrote:The system is designed to get the post possible results even if those results are negative.
Look at unemployment and their departments.
Unemployment is vast in the UK, and yet it is a success to process claimants in the minimum amount of time. Job centre workers are not employed to find claimants work, even though they have a vast range of jobs on offer, a large percentage of UK vacancies are displayed in jobcentres.
The system isn't geared up to pushing employment. Take away a right to unemployment benefits and you get passed onto other welfare structures. The system encourages options such as pointless training and schemes to cut 'actual' jobless figures, even though claimants are still getting paid every fortnight.
Even if a Jobcentre sends along dross to fill a vacancy the Jobcentre takes no blame.
The same goes for welfare, These public servants are employed to get people on benefits and to process their claims. There is no real responsibility to verify claims, only to get them on their way. You think the workers who process bogus claims get blamed for doing poor work? Nope.
No one need take ownership of an issue or even a case.
I dare anyone who works in the UK to visit a jobcentre any day of the week and see how many staff are there, vs claimants. look at how long the signing process takes. Go see an employment agency and see the difference.
It's no wonder people con the system. the Employess are not held responsible for the loss of thousands of £. Its ridiculous.
A fair point, perhaps greater accountability is required, I doubt there is any form of easy fix though because its not like the government wants to lose money. If there was an easy fix I'm sure it would have already been applied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Tea withdraw Matt? I need to know because....you might be having a caffiene withdraw mate.
I never run out of tea mate, I live over the road from a Waitrose.
Why do you ask? I'm my usual pleasant self aren't I?
My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...
Could of used this one as well:
An ex-soldier from Chorley has pleaded guilty to four counts of falsely obtaining more than £11,000 in benefits.
The extra cash was claimed over a six year period in housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Alan James Cobham, of Steeley Lane, claimed the benefits on the basis that his only source of income was his Incapacity Benefit.
However, he had also been in receipt of a war disablement pension and an armed forces occupational pension after leaving the Army because of injury, neither of which he had declared on his claims form, South Ribble Magistrates Court was told.
Mr Cobham also failed to declare the bank account into which these pensions were paid.
The information had come to light following a national data matching exercise.
Information from the Chorley council’s benefit system was matched with data held by other public authorities including the Armed Forces Pension Agency.
Councillor Kevin Joyce, Chorley Council’s Executive Member for Transformation said: “Chorley Council has, for many years, used its discretionary powers to disregard war pensions, war widows and war disablement pensions when calculating benefits. These pensions are paid when a serving member of the British armed forces is killed or wounded.
“By disregarding these pensions, ex-service personnel and their families are more likely to qualify for help with their rent and council tax.
“Mr Cobham’s occupational pension, like any pension from a former employer, is not disregarded and should have been declared. He had several opportunities to tell the council about his income but he did not.
“Now as well as having to repay the overpaid benefit, Mr Cobham has a criminal record for benefit fraud.”
Mr Cobham was given a two-year conditional discharge. No costs were awarded. He is currently repaying the overpayment.
or this:
A former soldier from Halesowen who fraudulently claimed almost £18,000 in benefits while working as a cleaner has been ordered to carry out unpaid work in the community.
Gary Petford, aged 54, is now back on incapacity benefits despite his cheating record – but the Department of Work and Pensions is deducting the money he obtained fraudulently from his payments.
Petford, of Stourbridge Road, admitted four fraudulent claims totalling £17,775 worth of incapacity, housing and council tax benefits. Dudley magistrates ordered him to pay £100 towards the prosecution costs.
Miss Claire Beddow, prosecuting, said Petford initially started claiming incapacity benefit legally in September 1993 after suffering a broken wrist.
But, the Department of Work and Pensions discovered that, from August 2008 to November 2009, he had been working as a cleaner for Manheim Europe. When he was interviewed, Petford admitted he had previously been a cleaner at Birmingham University from November 2006 to January 2008.
A former soldier has been jailed for a £21,000 benefit fraud.
Bernard Crowe, 62, of Sykes Street, Hull city centre, pleaded guilty to four counts of making false statements to obtain benefits amounting to £20,746 over a five-year period
Bernard Crowe
Judge Roger Thorn QC, sitting at Hull Crown Court, jailed Crowe, who has been unemployed for 19 years, to eight months imprisonment.
He said there needed to be a message sent out to benefit cheats that they will be punished.
Judge Thorn said: "I have to have regard for the prevalence of these offences.
"In this area of deprivation, these are substantial sums and anything less than a custodial sentence would send out the wrong message and would repulse those who are law abiding."
Crowe had claimed he only had £100 of savings, but investigators discovered he had £60,000 in his bank accounts.
He pleaded guilty on the basis that only £10,000 of the money belonged to him and admitted he had dishonestly looked after the rest of the money for a friend who was getting divorced to ensure it not form part of a divorce settlement.
Crowe admitted wrongly claiming housing, council tax and income support benefits between March 2001 and May 2006.
Judge Thorn QC added: "Over a period of time you have been dishonest. You also concealed a sum of £40,000 while your friend was going through a divorce process.
"Concealing money that might have been available to his wife. I take into account the gravity of these matters over all."
The court heard Crowe had served in the army for eight years and had been described as having "exemplary" conduct.
Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) fraud manager Susan Hall said: "Most people only claim the benefits they are entitled to. But we know a tiny percentage want to steal money intended to help others.
"That is unfair, and we are determined to crack down on these cases. Mr Crowe has found out that our investigators are committed to catch the few who are stealing money they are not entitled to."
Crowe was also ordered to pay £250 court costs.
A proceeds of crime hearing will be held on September 30.
His benefits have currently been reduced to enable him to pay back some of the money he fraudulently claimed from the DWP.
CT GAMER wrote:My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...
Have you been drinking mate? Your not making any sense tonight.
Of course Itwas chosen for particular characteristics! Read what I write.
I specifically said that I picked him because he wasn't a British citizen. Here, this is about 6 posts up.
I linked the story because I think it goes some way to proving my belief that we DO provide acceptable levels of social care, because a guy who wasnt even a British citizen was given a two bedroomed flat, that was specially fitted for him as he had (fake) disabilities, thus proving that there are adequate measures in place to ensure that people with special needs ARE cared/provided for.
Secondly, what on earth is the point of your links? Is anyone foolish enough to think that soldiers DONT commit fraud?!
Hah! Like they are paragons of moral behaviour?!
Soldiers are as bad as every other human, some are very good, some are very bad. Exactly where are you going with this line of reasoning?
CT GAMER wrote:My mistake Mattyrm, I can clearly see now that your example wasn't chosen because of any particular characteristics, origin, ethnicity of the subject...
Have you been drinking mate? Your not making any sense tonight.
Of course I was chosen for particular characteristics! Read what I write.
I specifically said that I picked him because he wasn't a British citizen.
And so how is that an example of providing adequate benefits?
It is an example of fraud, as are mine.
Just because some people are committing fraud does not mean that the system provides adequate benefits to everyone that needs them or to the degree that would be beneficial.
Seems more like another attempt by you to hint about how much you hate "those" types...
mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?
Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?
Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.
And so how is that an example of providing adequate benefits?
It is an example of fraud, as are mine.
Just because some people are committing fraud does not mean that the system provides adequate benefits to everyone that needs them or to the degree that would be beneficial.
Seems more like another attempt by you to hint about how much you hate "those" types...
Of course it does, it said he was given nearly half a million pounds, and his flat was given to him, and specially adjusted for his needs because he was disabled! How can that not prove that benefits are adequate?
Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.
Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.
The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."
...
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Your motivation is transparent. You have often made threads like this one attacking claimants, immigrants and Arabic people, and this is more of the same.
There isn't any reason to mention this guy except to emphasise the £400,000 he defrauded. It's nothing to do with social welfare.
mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?
Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?
Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.
How on earth am I saying "punish the vulnerable" when I am saying nothing of the sort?
I am not advocating removal of state assistance for people with special needs, at no point in this thread have I said that, and only a total savage would say such a thing. If I said "Yeah! people in wheelchairs deserve to starve!" then you could and should request a thread name change, but I am not.
I am merely saying that the assistance is clearly available and many people make use of it. Where are you getting this from, and why are you so irate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Your whole thread is based on the idea that Mohammed Barazin, or whatever his name is, is pretty typical of benefit claimants. If not, if he is an exception, there is no point in anything you posted.
Of course it isnt, the clue is in the title.
The thread is called "Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate..."
...
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Your motivation is transparent. You have often made threads like this one attacking claimants, immigrants and Arabic people, and this is more of the same.
There isn't any reason to mention this guy except to emphasise the £400,000 he defrauded. It's nothing to do with social welfare.
Do me a favour. I am a constant and vocal critic of all organised Religion, regularly and often, and especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This has never ever been hidden by me, so why on earth would I start now?
You are attempting to insinuate I am racist because I happen to dislike Islam, when I criticize Christianity just as much and I always have done, so clearly that is entirely incorrect as well.
Although, less of late due to unfair and ill thought out bans.
The point is exactly what it says on the tin. How can disability benefit be inadequate when a man who isn't a citizen can obtain £400,000 of it?
mattyrm wrote:
Regards yours mate, It seems so trivial it doesn't really warrant a response surely?
Of course nobody is going to argue that tax evasion is GOOD are they? I and most of the free thinking world clearly agree with you.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop benefit fraud though does it?
Fraud is a crime. It is illegal. Its cost is negligible in comparison to pretty much anything, including conventional crime.
The thread title is completely miss-leading. I may message a mod requesting it to be changed to "should we punish the vulnerable for something they didn't do?". Title as it stands gives no hint as to the HATEHATEHATE that essentially make up everything you've said.
How on earth am I saying "punish the vulnerable" when I am saying nothing of the sort?
I am not advocating removal of state assistance for people with special needs, at no point in this thread have I said that, and only a total savage would say such a thing. If I said "Yeah! people in wheelchairs deserve to starve!" then you could and should request a thread name change, but I am not.
I am merely saying that the assistance is clearly available and many people make use of it. Where are you getting this from, and why are you so irate?
Every single post in off-topic involves saying the person who disagrees with you is irrationally angry, so i'll ignore that.
All you have done is singled out a single instance of theft and said it's wrong. Why not make a thread about why murder is wrong? Or rape, or beating someone up, or anything wrong?
Joey wrote:
All you have done is singled out a single instance of theft and said it's wrong. Why not make a thread about why murder is wrong? Or rape, or beating someone up, or anything wrong?
Mate, all of those things are so clearly and obviously wrong that there wouldn't be any point in said thread because everyone would instantly agree. You cant have a discussion if you all agree can you?
The wellfare thing is a good debate because people see things differently. I am a big supporter of Mr Cameron and I believe that clearly our current system is generous enough as it stands and can be easily defrauded. I think that when DC says the system could do with some changes it could do, but that doesn't mean I think we should be leaving people to starve because I clearly don't. If I give you the impression that I am ridiculously right wing then I apologise, but most of the time my tongue if firmly in my cheek when I say things like "Bring back hanging and flogging"
mattyrm wrote: The point is exactly what it says on the tin. How can disability benefit be inadequate when a man who isn't a citizen can obtain £400,000 of it?
About £140,000 went to his carers (assuming he wasn't defrauding them too - Oh the irony) so the figure's a little closer to £260,000 as an individual.
One does wonder how he managed this without proper medical confirmation (GP, specialists and such). I understand that medical professional input is to be reduced under Tory plans. The new Tory check list approach, without guidance from medical professionals, will undoubtedly increase the chances of fraud not decrease it.
I don't have a problem with genuinely ill people getting the support that the do. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that undeserving fraudsters should get help. We're in agreement there.
The only other issue is should genuinely ill people get the money they do.
mattyrm wrote: I dont agree with waterboarding either.
You say that, and I just have this image of you in a pub shouting "It doesn't go far enough!" to the other patrons.
Hah!
No as I told Dogma in the thread on the subject of Waterboarding, people on higher pay scales than me said torture isn't effective, so that's good enough for me.
Plus, I dislike the idea of getting someone to do things that I am not comfortable with doing, and I wouldnt be comfortbale torturing someone. And those chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly types have such a hard on for it that I cant help but disagree with them.
Shooting a weapon at people who you believe deserve it is one thing, but its quick and well... relatively clean. Actually torturing another human being is something that nobody should be comfortable doing unless they have severe mental issues. Plus, how can we claim the moral high ground if we behave as badly as our enemies?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
I don't have a problem with genuinely ill people getting the support that the do.
I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
mattyrm wrote:Well, unless you get pissed and go train surfing.
Ha! Got you! Blaming it on the drunken train surfers eh? You fascist pig!
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
The debate is that last week I was arguing the toss saying that I didn't believe that people were getting a raw deal from the state as it stands, because disabled groups marched on Westminster about perceived "cuts" the benefits system, and they said they "had it hard enough already" and as a staunch supporter of Superdave Cameron I disagree and feel that we do actually provide well enough for those people that are unfortunate enough to be on disability.
There is a happy medium between doing the moral thing and providing assistance to people who need it, and giving far too many concessions to people that rely on the state.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!
As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.
In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!
As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.
In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!
He was Moroccan so 5 stars if you can guess his religion.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.
Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!
As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.
In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!
He was Moroccan so 5 stars if you can guess his religion.
Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.
Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.
It's not "shocking".
Shocking-To a shocking degree; extremely: "my feet are swollen something shocking".
I'd advise you read more books and less tabloids.
On the subject, £40,000 a year compared to, roughly, £800-£1000 a week for care provided by the NHS/private.
Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?
"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.
Morocco is 98.7% Muslim.
The fact that you're incapable of noticing genuine intolerance speaks wonders for your outlook on life.
mattyrm wrote:The debate is that last week I was arguing the toss saying that I didn't believe that people were getting a raw deal from the state as it stands, because disabled groups marched on Westminster about perceived "cuts" the benefits system, and they said they "had it hard enough already" and as a staunch supporter of Superdave Cameron I disagree and feel that we do actually provide well enough for those people that are unfortunate enough to be on disability.
There is a happy medium between doing the moral thing and providing assistance to people who need it, and giving far too many concessions to people that rely on the state.
So we provide well enough? But should we provide less? If there are cuts people will get less. So you think genuinely ill people should get less.
Is this feeling that they should get less based upon a sound understanding of the financial needs of someone who requires 24 hour care, or something else?
Again, nobody is saying Fraudsters should get anything, but a key component of the cuts is to remove healthcare professionals from the equation. That will cost less (in the short term, before the appeals for mis-diagnosis eat up all the money). But diagnosis by check list will make it easier to commit fraud and harder for genuine cases who for whatever reason do not conform to the check list.
So Cameron's plan will help fraudsters, hinder genuine claims and probably not cost any less in the long term. I'm fairly opposed to that.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
What attack exactly?
Disagreeing with another poster isn't an attack.
Closing a thread because of, or moderating someone who you disagree with is lame, and that is one of the reasons another noted OT member lost his mod status I would wager...
That aside, Mattyrm likes to tell us over and over how he "tells it like it is", and "doesnt pull any punches" and any other number of cliches he uses to excuse his attempts to shock and stir the pot (often boarding on racism and hate speech).
If that is how you present and represent yourslef then you have to be willing to accept when people give you the same about your statements. The cliche here would be "take it like a man" I think...
Albatross wrote:Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.
What do you propose we do with bedridden people?
Personally I think that they should become wards of the state in small state run establishments. It would be cheaper and harder to exploit. Thatcher style 'care' in the community patently doesn't work.
Jihadin wrote:Was your Grandfather legally selling or illegally selling? What was he selling to them?
Army equipment, entirely illegal. Not guns or bullets obviously, but general army wear. Cloth, equipment, etc.
Just a very informal creaming off of equipment, the kind of thing that goes on in the army today, as well as private businesses. I'm sure most people know someone who works in a restaurant who can get very cheap high quality steaks.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.
Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.
It's not "shocking".
Shocking-To a shocking degree; extremely: "my feet are swollen something shocking".
I'd advise you read more books and less tabloids.
Right, let's nip this in the bud right here and now: I've seen you swaggering around here recently being extraordinarily rude to people, acting as if you're some sort of genius with an incisive wit, but here's a piece of advice - You aren't funny, you're just rude and aggressive. I imagine that you consider yourself to be forthright - I'm sure that you make statements like 'I'm just being honest', 'I speak my mind, and call a spade a spade' all the time, but the fact is, you're one of those exceptionally stupid people who mistakes forthrightness for ignorance. You're not in a position to make any assumptions about my reading habits or level of education, I just disagree with you so you're making ad hominem arguments. That's both incredibly arrogant, and indicative of a lack of emotional maturity on your part.
Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?
Oh, of course I would. I mean, I said it didn't I? I clearly typed it out in block capitals. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't quote me.
My point was that £40K per year just for being alive is not 'not much', and that the fact that there are people who consider that to be the case in this country is shocking to me. It's a lot of money, and the man in question hasn't earned it.
Albatross wrote:Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.
What do you propose we do with bedridden people?
I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.
Personally I think that they should become wards of the state in small state run establishments. It would be cheaper and harder to exploit. Thatcher style 'care' in the community patently doesn't work.
Well, the truth is that it works for some, and doesn't work for others.
Albatross wrote:I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.
All 'rights' are constructs, nobody is 'entitled' to anything -ever, lets not go there it's far too deep a tunnel. We as a society generally believe that they should have help, whether they're thankful for it is irrelevant.
So if you want 'basically what we are doing now' then are you merely shocked by how much thing cost? If so, it is a tenuous claim to be well read on the subject and shocked by how much it costs.
Perhaps you've done a little 'book' reading on the subject and are more bemused than shocked.
Albatross wrote:I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.
All 'rights' are constructs, nobody is 'entitled' to anything -ever, lets not go there it's far too deep a tunnel.
Fair enough!
We as a society generally believe that they should have help, whether they're thankful for it is irrelevant.
Actually, I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.
So if you want 'basically what we are doing now' then are you merely shocked by how much thing cost? If so, it is a tenuous claim to be well read on the subject and shocked by how much it costs.
I don't believe that I claimed to be at all well-read on the subject, but nevertheless, handing out in benefits almost four times what a person on minimum wage could expect to earn in a year when working full-time is a lot of money, whichever way you slice it - especially when you consider that the guy in question was obviously mentally capable enough to undertake advanced study. I have in my family a person with dementia, and their home care budget for the year is nowhere near even half that. Bear in mind that this is a person that can't cook for herself, dress herself etc.
Perhaps you've done a little 'book' reading on the subject and are more bemused than shocked.
I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.
Albatross wrote:I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.
I said 'generally', so you have no need to disagree. It's already covered in what I wrote. Regarding 'entitlement', didn't we both agree to not use that line of argument.
Albatross wrote:I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.
Maybe Joey is loaded. I took his meaning to be 'not unjustifiable for the situation'. In this context £40k is not a lot of money. You should re-read the OP though. £40k is not one year's direct benefits to that individual, approximately a third of that was payment to carers.
£70k Housing benefit is pretty disturbing to me. You can buy most of a house with that (not in London). However I understand that housing in London can be problematic.
Albatross wrote:
Right, let's nip this in the bud right here and now: I've seen you swaggering around here recently being extraordinarily rude to people, acting as if you're some sort of genius with an incisive wit, but here's a piece of advice - You aren't funny, you're just rude and aggressive. I imagine that you consider yourself to be forthright - I'm sure that you make statements like 'I'm just being honest', 'I speak my mind, and call a spade a spade' all the time, but the fact is, you're one of those exceptionally stupid people who mistakes forthrightness for ignorance. You're not in a position to make any assumptions about my reading habits or level of education, I just disagree with you so you're making ad hominem arguments. That's both incredibly arrogant, and indicative of a lack of emotional maturity on your part.
okay.
Albatross wrote:
Oh, of course I would. I mean, I said it didn't I? I clearly typed it out in block capitals. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't quote me.
My point was that £40K per year just for being alive is not 'not much', and that the fact that there are people who consider that to be the case in this country is shocking to me. It's a lot of money, and the man in question hasn't earned it.
Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed. It's therefore irrelevant arguing with you further.
Joey wrote:
Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed. It's therefore irrelevant arguing with you further.
Funny thing, ad hominem isn't bad per se.
For example, you might reply to "Well, he doesn't like Mexicans!" with "Yeah, but he's a racist!" without any fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole....
Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.
Albatross wrote:I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.
I said 'generally', so you have no need to disagree. It's already covered in what I wrote.
I was disagreeing with your assertion that their thankfulness is irrelevant.
Albatross wrote:I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.
Maybe Joey is loaded. I took his meaning to be 'not unjustifiable for the situation'. In this context £40k is not a lot of money. You should re-read the OP though. £40k is not one year's direct benefits to that individual, approximately a third of that was payment to carers.
£70k Housing benefit is pretty disturbing to me. You can buy most of a house with that (not in London). However I understand that housing in London can be problematic.
Yep. Why do people get to live in expensive houses in London, though? Can't they be relocated to somewhere more cost-effective to the tax-payer than North London? It's notoriously overpriced. Also FYI, I read the OP - I still happen to think that £400,000 in benefits over a decade, even including care, is extraordinarily generous.
Joey wrote:Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed.
What statistics? The ones about tax evasion costing the UK more than fraud? I ignored them because (and here's an example of how to use the word 'irrelevant' correctly) they were irrelevant - they had absolutely nothing at all to do with the statement that I was making.
dogma wrote:Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.
Well, of course they can make demands should they wish. I happen to think that it's morally indefensible to do so.
To all, a question: Are the severely disabled effectively kept alive for our pleasure?
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
I didn't say anything about racism, that is an interpretation of my comment that mattyrm made.
Looking at his posting history, there is a preponderance of complaints about benefit claimants, immigrants, and religious people especially muslims. People can draw their own conclusions.
What I am saying is that for someone with that history to post a thread about a muslim immigrant benefit fraudster, and claim he is declaring his support for current social policy, is at best disingenuous.
Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.
For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.
I didn't say anything about racism, that is an interpretation of my comment that mattyrm made.
Looking at his posting history, there is a preponderance of complaints about benefit claimants, immigrants, and religious people especially muslims. People can draw their own conclusions.
What I am saying is that for someone with that history to post a thread about a muslim immigrant benefit fraudster, and claim he is declaring his support for current social policy, is at best disingenuous.
...And I'm saying that is antagonistic. Which would be fine, of course, except for the fact that you are a moderator - if you antagonise another poster they are unable to respond in kind because you're in a position to ban them, and you know that. That's an abuse of power. If either the thread or the OP have broken a rule, shut them down. Don't draw mattyrm into an argument just so you can ban him again. It's petty.
Yeah lets just ignore the childish notion that if you are slightly right of someone's very left political opinion you are a Nazi and just stick to what's being actually written by people. The story is on the bbc website, not the daily mail, and neither I nor they mentioned Religion. Keep on topic.
George. How does a new approach make it easier to commit fraud? Im not seeing your logic.
As alby said there can be changes applied that are logical and don't leave you living in squalor. Why do you get to choose your postpone when you rely on the state? Surely its ridiculous to live as a tenant in Knightsbridge at a cost of 3 grand rent a month to the state?
Will your care be that much worse if we just.. you know.. move you?
Is it antagonistic to point out a flaw in someone's argument?
mattyrm [i]did respond in kind[/l] by accusing me of casting him as a racist. He could have addressed my point differently by bringing some genuine information about the successes of the welfare state.
Albatross wrote:I was disagreeing with your assertion that their thankfulness is irrelevant.
Can we measure their thankfulness in a meaningful way? Is it required in each case for payment? No we cannot, therefore it is irrelevant. Let's put 'thankfulness' with 'rights' and 'entitlement' shall we? They are, as you rightly say, intellectually dishonest arguments.
Albatross wrote:Yep. Why do people get to live in expensive houses in London, though? Can't they be relocated to somewhere more cost-effective to the tax-payer than North London? It's notoriously overpriced. Also FYI, I read the OP - I still happen to think that £400,000 in benefits over a decade, even including care, is extraordinarily generous.
You appeared to be missing a salient point, I didn't think or say you hadn't read it. Social housing is a massively complex problem with a long history. There's not enough information here to say why he was given housing in North London. You raise some good points but IMO Social Housing is better suited to it's own thread rather than a tangent here.
@ Mattyrm: The new system requires that your illness fit a check list (actually the current one does too, but the check list will be the only test in the new system) rather than be subject to testing from a Medical Professional with years of experience. Do you really think the check list will be harder to 'beat' by fraudsters than a Medical Professional?
The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.
For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.
Now the amount paid in housing benefits is not the fault of the claimant, but of the landlord trying to milk it knowing the local authority will cover what the person renting owes. That should be an excuse for the state imposing rent controls in the private sector if I ever saw one. But the government don't do this, and with all these people jumping on the buy-to-let market the rental prices in the UK have shot up.
So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families, introduce things like state imposed rent controls on the private market and cut the cost to the tax payer and ease the burden on those private renting out of their own pocket. Then they might have a bit more money to spend in the shops and get the economy going.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.
For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.
Wrong, first its still money stolen. Even if the carers benefits were lost to everyone (which cant work as someone needs to accept the funds) its an additional cost to enable the enhanced level of benefits an Incapacity claim holds.
However in this and other cases you have got accomplices, in this case blood relatives to masquerade as carers and claiming those monies. The fraud is very substantial.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Now the amount paid in housing benefits is not the fault of the claimant, but of the landlord trying to milk it knowing the local authority will cover what the person renting owes. That should be an excuse for the state imposing rent controls in the private sector if I ever saw one. But the government don't do this, and with all these people jumping on the buy-to-let market the rental prices in the UK have shot up.
Not true. While fair rent laws apply you are still gaining accommodation for free by deception if you are not going through with the requirement of a claim to which housing benefit is linked. Noone gets Housing benefit (and Council Tax benefit) independently, its entirely related to a secondary claim based on Pension related, Incapacity related, Jobseekers related or Income related. If the welfare claim is fraudulent the Housing benefit is likewise fraudulent.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families, introduce things like state imposed rent controls on the private market and cut the cost to the tax payer and ease the burden on those private renting out of their own pocket. Then they might have a bit more money to spend in the shops and get the economy going.
Please try again. You can't draw a worthwhile conclusion on the basis of a sequence of bad errors.
Rent controls will not work as a number of institutions now have the entire funding based on rent. Hostels and secure accommodation ares good example of this. Hostels (like the YMCA) would charge rent and claim subsidy from local or central government to offset care funds, however since 2004 this system was streamlined into a single rent and benefit calculation. Frankly it was a good idea as special rates of Housing benefit were introduced for hostels and supported accommodation to account for the extreme hike in rents accompanying this. Now adding rent caps would cripple supported accommodation, or would have to set uyp a new list of exceptions. When you make allowances for exceptions you create a need for further assessment to qualify exceptions and the opportunity for accommodation providers to obtain exempting from rent capping by underhand methods. All in all your system is unworkable from the get go, and only helps to disturb a free market without any of the benefits of limiting a free market.
There is room for capping a free market even under a Conservative government, however it begins and ends with infrastructure costs. Hard caps on fuel bill rates is a plausible example and one that should and has been looked into.
Just pointing out that the claimant Matty has used as an example had family members as 'carers'. So the fraud extends further.
As for £40k being generous. Is this money taxable? If my salary was £40,000 pa then i would get a heck of a lot less to live on after taxes and NI. And still have to pay for my housing etc. Even allowing for carers thats a load of dosh going directly into someones back pocket. Obviously this depends on the level of care needed, but I would assume that someone who is genuinely incapacitated would have different needs depending on the circumstances.
Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.
The current checks and balances rely solely on tick boxes on claim forms.
Orlanth wrote:Wrong, first its still money stolen.
I'm not talking about fraudulent cases FFS, I'm talking about genuine cases, so you're calling me wrong on things I haven't argued. People who defraud the system should be imprisoned. I think we can all agree the money obtained by deception is criminal and undeserved, yes? No one is arguing that people obtaining money by deception are entitled to it.
Mattyrm wants to cuts benefits to genuine claimants - the majority of claimants are not fraudulent. When people pick on someone and say 'that person is disabled and gets £40K or £50K a year more than I earn' they are missing the point. As someone said over the last page, £40K in benefits is a lot, justified or not, which is what I was responding to. Genuine claimants on disability benefits are not rich, and that although the amounts of money they get seem large they don't see most of it because it goes towards genuine costs which are high. In general, the cost of housing benefit paid out can seem high, but again is largely determined by landlords trying to push it to the limit. It's not typically the benefits claimant wringing it for money, they don't get that money.
For the most deserving cases the amounts available are spot on but you are still left with even genuine claims which persist because it's easy to stay on them.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.
I don't think that anyone said that was the case, I certainly didn't. Disabled people and those with specific learning difficulties DO get freebies, though. Students who are dyslexic or who have ADHD (etc.) at our University get £1000 to buy a laptop and accessories, plus free books, a digital dictaphone... I personally know a girl with ME who was given the use of a specially-adapted car (fuel costs met), a newly-refurbished house in a nice area (again, costs met by the taxpayer), not to mention a top-of-the-range wheelchair, all the pain meds she can eat and a 3 month stay in a specialist pain spa clinic in Bath, as well as tax relief and Disability Living Allowance. She could probably work, but where's the incentive? That is an extraordinary level of profligacy on the welfare state's part, and we do it so we can feel good about ourselves. When you get down to it, that's the reason.
For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.
That the recipient doesn't directly see that money isn't necessarily a valid argument - a large amount of my income is taken up by costs of living. The difference is, I meet those costs myself. And your claim that they don't get a say in how the budget is spent, I think, is not strictly accurate. Part of having a personal care budget is being able to decide where that budget is spent, and presumably you are allowed to decide which area you live in. This should not be the case - if you are utterly reliant on the state to survive, you shouldn't be entitled to luxuries you haven't earned, one of which is getting to decide where you live.
So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families...
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
The Telegraph wrote:According to an official Treasury forecast, benefits will cost £170.9 billion in 2010/11. That is equal to what the Government will spend on the NHS, schools and universities combined.
Mr. Burning wrote:Just pointing out that the claimant Matty has used as an example had family members as 'carers'. So the fraud extends further.
Oh yeah I forgot that part, the story said that both of his parents are now here as well, and it was they that were acting as his carers.
Isnt my suggestion a fair one? Boris Johnson said something similar with regards to housing benefits and was unfairly lambasted. You remember, when he said something along the lines of "we are not going to have Kosovan style ethnic cleansing in London"
I mean, is anyone AGAINST the £400 a week cap in housing benefit? It was just one of many pieces of Tory legislature that has had my full support.
gak, id have put it 400 lower!
If your rent is over £1200 a month, and you want the tax payer to look after you, move.
Is that really such an intolerant thing to suggest?!
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Albatross wrote:
Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.
I get the facetiousness but this is still racist. Everyone knows brown people are from South America.
Joey wrote:
Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?
"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."
Pretty sure the message here was to encourage euthanasia or eugenics.
Joey wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Was your Grandfather legally selling or illegally selling? What was he selling to them?
Army equipment, entirely illegal. Not guns or bullets obviously, but general army wear. Cloth, equipment, etc.
Just a very informal creaming off of equipment, the kind of thing that goes on in the army today, as well as private businesses. I'm sure most people know someone who works in a restaurant who can get very cheap high quality steaks.
Jihadin wrote:So he was a military surplus seller. No issue then.
I'm pretty sure he means that Grandad was a supply sergeant or similar and was selling government equipment for personal profit.
dogma wrote:
Albatross wrote:
It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole....
Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.
Albatross wrote:
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
This.
The number one reason I am against throwing money at the problem is because it just doesnt work. People become dependant on it.
I honestly think the kinder thing to do is motivate people to care for themselves. If you just endlessly throw cash at people there is no incentive at all to better yourself. And that is why you get career wellfare recipients, they live shorter lives, they tend to drink too much, they think they are pulling a fast one but what we are doing to them is detrimental to their health! If you give ten grand to some work-shy family that exist on wellfare, will they invest the cash into an ISA or put it aside to send the kids to college, or will they spend it on scratch cards and special brew?
We need to help people to help themselves. Endlessly throwing cash at the poorer members of our society isn't doing them or us any favours at all. I'm interested in promoting greater social mobility, not getting people addicted to wellfare so I can feel better about myself when I toss them some scraps.
I do see the issue with the welfare dependency. Oddly, when I worked in a working class disadvantaged school in Dublin, I didn't see that attitude as much as I do here in a reasonably affluent area of the UK. I think the welfare culture is more embedded over here.
Last year, coming to the end of my year 11s time in school, I was chatting to a few of them about what they wanted to do after school. The lack of aspiration was really depressing. A whole bunch of them had a plan of signing on to benefits and then sitting at home.
I reckon part of that has to be the fact that they feel a bit paralysed by having to be a grown up, but man, it's not going to help them later in life. Once they get stuck in long term unemployment they are boned. I headed to uni when I was 17 and worked pretty hard to get myself through. (I was a disorganised pleb in first year and distracted by having a real social life for the first time in second year, but I pulled it out at the end.) I still found it really difficult to find a job, and it's a major challenge even with the skills I have acquired just to not-suck at it. I just feel like these kids don't have a hope.
mattyrm wrote: I mean, is anyone AGAINST the £400 a week cap in housing benefit? It was just one of many pieces of Tory legislature that has had my full support.
gak, id have put it 400 lower!
They should introduce rent controls meaning that housing is cheaper for everyone. Cheaper for the state to pay benefits, cheaper for people renting out of their own pocket.
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'.
It may not the purpose, but it is a consequence. Ultimately the purpose of all cuts is to reduce the national debt, although there's definitely an ideological aspect to the way the Tories approach things. Generally people don't want to squeeze the poor, but broad cuts achieve just that. Certainly don't be afraid to nail the fraudulent claimants but a lot of genuine claimants are coming under pressure, people who have little hope of employment due to serious conditions. Why is it that benefits and public services are being cut, while there's colossal amounts of unpaid tax outstanding from large companies? Funny how some people are expected to pay and not others - 'we're all in this together' as the conservatives are always telling us.
Welfare dependency has been created largely in part dur to the fact that there are whole areas of the country in which industry has been destroyed. What are people supposed to do? It's a huge social problem in some areas which become sinks for the unemployed and slide into utterly hopeless depressing places with drugs and crime. I somehow think there are more constructive approaches than cutting their benefits... if anything that gives me the impression they are writing these people off and just trying to make it cheaper to do so.
Albatross wrote:
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
This.
The number one reason I am against throwing money at the problem is because it just doesnt work. People become dependant on it.
I honestly think the kinder thing to do is motivate people to care for themselves. If you just endlessly throw cash at people there is no incentive at all to better yourself. And that is why you get career wellfare recipients, they live shorter lives, they tend to drink too much, they think they are pulling a fast one but what we are doing to them is detrimental to their health! If you give ten grand to some work-shy family that exist on wellfare, will they invest the cash into an ISA or put it aside to send the kids to college, or will they spend it on scratch cards and special brew?
We need to help people to help themselves. Endlessly throwing cash at the poorer members of our society isn't doing them or us any favours at all. I'm interested in promoting greater social mobility, not getting people addicted to wellfare so I can feel better about myself when I toss them some scraps.
I have to admit I find the logic here very convincing.
That ME person who has the free laptop and car will no doubt pretty quickly cure herself by force of will if her benefits are cut off.
Seriously though, there is a debate to be held around what constitutes an acceptable, affordable and fair level of welfare to relieve various different types of social distress.
It can't be advanced by slagging off the other side as being intellectually dishonest. They have votes and you need to engage with them in order to get to a solution.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Seriously though, there is a debate to be held around what constitutes an acceptable, affordable and fair level of welfare to relieve various different types of social distress. It can't be advanced by slagging off the other side as being intellectually dishonest.
Thankfully, no-one could accuse you of that....
I have to admit I find the logic here very convincing.
That ME person who has the free laptop and car will no doubt pretty quickly cure herself by force of will if her benefits are cut off.
...Ah, looks like I spoke too soon.
Once again, I didn't say that but I can see why you would find that easier to argue against. What I said was that this person could do some work, but that there is currently no incentive for her to do so, as claiming the maximum amount of support available to her from the state provides her with a quality of life that she wouldn't otherwise have, or more accurately, that she would only have if she worked hard. That's a non-choice. What we should be doing is providing the disabled with a level of support inversely proportionate to their ability to work - in theory, we are supposed to be doing that, but from my perspective it seems that a person is 'signed on the sick' and removed from the employment pool, whereupon they become the state's responsibility. The disabled should be just be treated like any other jobseeker. They should be given specialist support in order to find work suitable for them, and their benefits should be contingent upon that. The expectation that people should 'earn' their benefits is not inhumane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
It may not the purpose, but it is a consequence.
The consequence does not invalidate the purpose, and it's not the only potential consequence. Unless of course you believe that a person's only recourse when their benefits are cut off is to starve to death. There is another option: Get a fething job!
Ultimately the purpose of all cuts is to reduce the national debt, although there's definitely an ideological aspect to the way the Tories approach things.
There is an ideological component to the way that everyone approaches everything, not just in politics.
Generally people don't want to squeeze the poor, but broad cuts achieve just that. Certainly don't be afraid to nail the fraudulent claimants but a lot of genuine claimants are coming under pressure, people who have little hope of employment due to serious conditions. Why is it that benefits and public services are being cut, while there's colossal amounts of unpaid tax outstanding from large companies? Funny how some people are expected to pay and not others - 'we're all in this together' as the conservatives are always telling us.
Yes, but we are dealing with tax avoidance, plus it was our previous (slightly spurious) 'socialist' government that greatly contributed to the problem of tax avoidance in the City. Funny thing is, the poor of the UK didn't complain as much during the days of 'Cool Britannia' because their mouths were being stuffed with government money.
Welfare dependency has been created largely in part dur to the fact that there are whole areas of the country in which industry has been destroyed.
That's not quite true, is it? Failing nationalised businesses being put out of their misery 20+ years ago isn't quite the same thing as 'destroying' industry - manufacturing is still one of largest parts of our economic output. It doesn't employ the same numbers of people as it used to, but I'm not in favour of paying people to dig ditches just so they have something to do. The focus of our economy has diversified over the last 30 years - you can't fight progress.
Albatross wrote:Once again, I didn't say that but I can see why you would find that easier to argue against. What I said was that this person could do some work, but that there is currently no incentive for her to do so, as claiming the maximum amount of support available to her from the state provides her with a quality of life that she wouldn't otherwise have, or more accurately, that she would only have if she worked hard. That's a non-choice. What we should be doing is providing the disabled with a level of support inversely proportionate to their ability to work - in theory, we are supposed to be doing that, but from my perspective it seems that a person is 'signed on the sick' and removed from the employment pool, whereupon they become the state's responsibility. The disabled should be just be treated like any other jobseeker. They should be given specialist support in order to find work suitable for them, and their benefits should be contingent upon that. The expectation that people should 'earn' their benefits is not inhumane.
This may seem off-topic, but bear with me.
I read a fair number of webcomics. Several of them are done by people living in London, trying to humorously depcit life on the dole because they have medical or mental conditions that make it very difficult to work. And while there are light-hearted moments, by and large the life depicted seems very, very bleak. They aren't happy with their situation, their lives, or even themselves. Fighting depression seems to be a pretty common theme.
And here I can empathize. I've been unemployed, forced to live off of my wife's earnings (I live in America, so when I walk into the unemployment office they classify me as 'white, male, employable, get-the-@*$^-out-of-here-you-lazy-bum) for almost a year once. Nearly got my backside thrown out too, before a job FINALLY came along (granted, back to flipping burgers). But what surprised me was how much better I felt about myself once I was doing something productive... even if it was a crap restaurant job making 40% of my previous pay.
So this whole 'earn your benefits' might be a good thing on more levels than the obvious - that is, getting people working for even part of their upkeep instead of simply collecting it from the government - especially the ones with mental issues like severe depression and social anxieties. I'm not saying we should just cut them off - nowhere close to that. These people have real problems and need real help. But everyone might be surprised how much having something useful to do might help them.
The trick is to find them things to do to earn their pay that they can do within the capabilites of their individual infirmities. Maybe... new hires for government bureacracies should come out of the welfare pool? How much physical capability does it take to sit a a desk and do paperwork? If full-time is beyond what they can do, get two or three can do it together?
That it could be done that way, I'm pretty certain. That it will be done that way... not so much.
A little more than a year ago, on the day after the GOP regained control of the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be John Boehner said one of the first orders of business after he took charge would be the repeal of health care reform.
"I believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country," Boehner said at a press conference. "That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care."
Boehner is not the first nor the only Republican to try to make us believe that the U.S. has the world's best health care system and that we're bound to lose that distinction because of Obamacare. I've heard GOP candidates for president say the same thing in recent months, charging that we need to get rid of a President who clearly is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing, something that isn't broken in the first place.
Well, those guys need to get out more. Out of the country, in fact. They need to travel to at least one of the many countries that are doing a much better job of delivering high quality care at much lower costs than the good old USA.
If they're not interested in a fact-finding mission abroad, then perhaps they might take a look at two recent reports before they make any other statements about the quality of American health care.
Last week, the 34-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) released the results of its most recent study of the health care systems in its member countries, including the U.S., plus six others, for a total of 40. And those results are illuminating.
If Boehner and his fellow Republicans had characterized the U.S. system as the most expensive in the world, they would have been right on target. But they would have been way off base by calling it the best.
The OECD report is just the most recent evidence that Americans are not getting nearly as much bang for the health care buck as citizens of most other developed countries -- and even some countries in the developing world.
The OECD found that the United States spends two-and-a-half times more on health care per person than the OECD average. The U.S. even spends more than twice as much as France, which many experts contend has one of the best health care systems on the planet.
The average expenditure per person in the U.S. is $7,960, a third more than in Norway, the second highest. The OECD average, by comparison, is just $3,233. (It is $3,873 in France.)
Here are some reasons why: Hospital spending is 60 percent higher than the average of five other relatively expensive countries (Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France and Japan); spending on pharmaceuticals and medical goods is much higher here than any of the other countries; and administrative costs are more than two-and-a-half times the average of the others.
It was not all bad news for us. We're number one in the five-year breast cancer survival rate and number two (behind Japan) in the five-year colorectal cancer survival rate. We're also number one in costly knee replacements and number two (again behind Japan) in the number of MRI units per million people.
But we rank 29th in the number of hospital beds per person and 29th in the average length of a stay in the hospital. And we have high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension and other common illnesses.
When it comes to access to physicians, we're also near the bottom of the pack. We rank 26th in the number of physicians, especially primary care or family doctors, per 1,000 people.
In terms of life expectancy, we rank 28th, just behind Chile. The average age of death in the U.S. is 78.2, well below the average of 79.5 years in the other OCED countries.
The OECD study backs up the results of a report released by the Commonwealth Fund in October, which showed that the U.S. is actually losing ground to other countries in assuring that its citizens have equal access to affordable, efficient care.
The Commonwealth Fund "scorecard" found that the U.S. is failing to keep up with gains in health outcomes made by other nations. We now rank last out of 16 countries in the Commonwealth Fund study when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.
A big reason for the dismal results is the fact that more and more Americans are falling into the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured. As of last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund, 81 million adults in the U.S. -- 44 percent of all adults under age 65 -- were either uninsured or underinsured at some point during the year, up from 61 million as recently as 2003.
So the next time you hear a politician claim that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, be aware that he or she is trying to get you to believe something that is demonstrably not true, undoubtedly for no reason other than to advance their political agenda. We deserve better -- in both rhetoric and results.
That, I can also sympathise with. I had to lie and play down my qualifications to get work after a period of a few month's unemployment. It was desperation to work that did it for me.
Though, I guess, counterargument is, I had been screwed by the welfare office so I wasn't getting any benefits. Starvation or impending homelessness was what impelled me to lie about myself to get work. (As it happened, despite my degree I was perfectly capable of working as a shop security guard. Who'da thunk it?)
Albatross wrote:There is another option: Get a fething job!
Stop pretending that people can just walk off benefits and into a job.
I dont think he was pretending that, but its not too far off the mark. If you are genuinelly attempting to do so, you can find work Howard.
Well, most can.
I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!
The big problem with western countries is that they are not generating the demand for labour to create lots of jobs. This has been happening for several decades. The growth of government jobs disguised it but has led us (the UK) to the situation we are now in.
Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone can't simply "go and find a job".
The big problem with western countries is that they are not generating the demand for labour to create lots of jobs. This has been happening for several decades. The growth of government jobs disguised it but has led us (the UK) to the situation we are now in.
Well yeah KK clearly not everyone can, and Im not trying to be a proper bastard about it and say "everyone on the dole is lazy!" but the point is, some people can try a little bit harder. Im sure that some of the 1 million youth unemployed are just being ridiculously fussy. There was a big debate about it on Radio York and overwhelming consensus was that its not just the governments fault and as you might expect, its somewhere about the middle ground where you find the truth of it.
One of the guests was an employer and he said when he advertised for 3 apprentices, he got more interest from mothers and grandparents saying "Oh that job would be perfect for my Alan!" but not as much enthusiasm from Alan! He said that many of them made ridiculous demands, expected larger salaries, or flat out seemed to have been forced to attend an interview by someone else because they said things like "Im not really interested in this type of work if I am honest..."
As always there are two sides to every story. I sympathise with those that are really really trying and have some gak luck, but some of the young scamps out there whinging really need to put some more effort in, maybe expect a little less, and meet the prospective employers half way!
As I said, im not spectacularly qualified, and I didnt struggle upon leaving the Marines with my "feth it Ill do anything!" attitude.
Albatross wrote:There is another option: Get a fething job!
Stop pretending that people can just walk off benefits and into a job.
I dont think he was pretending that, but its not too far off the mark. If you are genuinelly attempting to do so, you can find work Howard.
The easy going jobs have hundreds of applicants for any position. There's a lot of people desperate to get out of unemployment, they aren't all feckless scroungers. go into the job centre and I see a mix of people who have freeloaded since school and other people desperate for something. I saw a guy the other week as good as told that because he was over 40 and laid off they couldn't do much for him. I saw the Christmas Temps list at the job centre, from here to Cardiff they only had enough to cover a side of A4. I thought it was a joke, you have a city the size of Cardiff and the surrounding area for 20 miles and they can only rummage up a list of jobs about 20 long for the christmas period??
Mainly for Mattrym...
Spoiler:
I'll tell you my situation. I'm unemployed as of the middle of October and I feel fething awful half the time. In order to bring in some sort of income towards the end of my studies my wife moved in with a friend in London because she couldn't find full time work here. We don't have the means to drop a large deposit on a rental and both live in London unless I have a job too, so I live with my parents until I get one there. I spend most of my day searching for jobs in London, filling out application forms and writing cover letters. I have to go for a range of technical jobs, some better than others... I would be hard pushed to lie about my qualifications and play them down while getting references, what do I tell them I've been doing for the last 4 years if not my PhD? Prison or stranded on a desert island is about all I can think of.
I get nothing for being unemployed because the other half is working full time and is my wife. Yeah, apparently when I was doing a PHD and effectively working full time I was earning too much for her to claim JSA when she was unemployed, but because of the non-taxable nature of most of my government grant I'm still entitled to nothing because to the tax man I'm no better than someone having put their feet up for the last 4 years. And get this, if we weren't fething married, I could claim! I'm being fething shafted because we did that stupid thing the Tories are always going on about which is being socially responsible and getting married and all it's done is repeatedly deny us money. It's a sad, fething joke.
I can't win. It's like you can't claim JSA as an undergraduate because your loan covers the full 52 weeks of the year. Yet when I applied for the hardship fund they took the yearly loan and divided it up into 30 weeks or whatever for assessment because that's what you have on a weekly basis during term time.
No doubt if I was a liar and a twister I could claim all sorts of benefits but I won't do that, I guess I'm a mug.
It does mean I've had the time to paint some models recently, which is something I've hardly done in the last 2 years because I've been too stressed and tired. That's the only up shot. Not living with my wife and living in this employment limbo isn't so good. So if you think I have much time for people getting anything more than their share you're wrong. Because whatever the government do regarding cuts, I get nothing anyway. I don't even count as 'youth unemployed', I'm too fething old.
No doubt if I was a liar and a twister I could claim all sorts of benefits but I won't do that, I guess I'm a mug.
Yes you could mate, but you wont and I respect you for it immensely. I dont think your a mug when you have too much pride in yourself to talk complete gak just to get some cash.
Im the same, and it gets you down sometimes. I get up for work when its pissing down with rain and sometimes I think "Would I really be that worse off if I lived in a council flat and didn't go to work?"
We are in extremely tough times, and for what its worth I do wish you luck on your search for employment. I can imagine it's frustrating as feth.
mattyrm wrote:
We are in extremely tough times, and for what its worth I do wish you luck on your search for employment. I can imagine it's frustrating as feth.
Sometimes I shake with anger at it. I don't know why, I'm just really angry at myself/jobs/recruiters/the world.
Howard, that is seriously rough. I hope you find something soon.
If it helps you any, when I said I had no qualifications, the dudes didn't even really ask for references or anything. I said I'd been working in a lab as a technician but hated it and wanted to change careers. I mean, that might not work for a lot of jobs and it's risky to try, so I'm not recommending it or anything.
I hear you on getting screwed by the system too- my PhD (what I'd done of it) wasn't counted as "work" or "experience" either.
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Did you read the OP in this thread when you came to that conclusion? Looks like you didn't.
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Did you read the OP in this thread when you came to that conclusion? Looks like you didn't.
Did you?
mattyrm wrote:Following on from the somewhat heated debate last week whereby I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished, disabled, special needs.. comes this heartwarming story.
bolded portions of the following article pointed out that he received a masters degree, tax free money, and a ground level handicap acceding flat at government expense. Good luck on your crusade.
AustonT wrote:
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.
I'm not really speaking to what should be done, because I generally believe that people should always do what is in their best interest, irrespective of morality. I'm merely saying that people in Western democracies have quite a bit of leverage when it comes to extracting benefits from the government.
Melissia wrote:I'm in a similar boat. My two year degree made me "over-qualified" for most low-end jobs, and yet I still don't qualify for any decent ones yet.
So I basically literally have no choice but to keep up with college as far as employment goes anyway.
I was in that situation, and ultimately had to trade on my experience in sports to get a job. My degree was essentially worthless in terms of employment, though I knew this while getting it, and amounted to a 4 year application to graduate school. Coming off my PhD I have basically 5 options:
1) Work for the US government (my preference).
2) Work for a different government.
3) Work for a think tank.
4) Go back to personal training.
5) Teach (shudder).
Anything outside that set is likely to reject me for being either unqualified or overqualified.
AustonT wrote:
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.
I'm not really speaking to what should be done, because I generally believe that people should always do what is in their best interest, irrespective of morality. I'm merely saying that people in Western democracies have quite a bit of leverage when it comes to extracting benefits from the government.
Melissia wrote:... which is saying he thinks they get too much money.
They being the impoverished, the disabled, thos with special needs, etc.
Melissia, it really isnt though is it?
Look, I wrote "... I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished"
That's not me saying I think they get too much really is it?
I mean, sure I think that they possibly do get a wee bit too much because I think getting 66k a year IS pretty high, considering that If your working a 40 hour week at minimum wage your only going to be making 20. But I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the mechanics of the payments, and I am aware that the bloke wont have been getting it all "cash in hand" so I don't think im particularly saying "diabled people get far too much money"
I was simply pointing out that I said in the conversation earlier in the week, that clearly disabled people aren't being left to starve. And when they are kicking up a fuss and marching on Westminster I find it somewhat offensive, because they are crying poverty and the story clearly shows that funding, housing, and carer support are all provided to people with special needs by the state.
I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!
mattyrm wrote: That's not me saying I think they get too much really is it?
I mean, sure I think that they possibly do get a wee bit too much because I think getting 66k a year IS pretty high, considering that If your working a 40 hour week at minimum wage your only going to be making 20. But I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the mechanics of the payments, and I am aware that the bloke wont have been getting it all "cash in hand" so I don't think im particularly saying "diabled people get far too much money"
How does they get "too much" fit with:
mattyrm wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:I don't have a problem with genuinely ill people getting the support that the[y] do.
I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
C'mon Matty, could you at least have a consistent line of argument please. Either what they get is fine or they get too much, you can't choose both.
biccat wrote:You're assuming that the bulk of the system goes to people who legitimately deserve benefits. This may not be true.
But it is true. Fraud has been tested in countless welfare systems, and in the worst cases has been shown as no more than 5%. To claim that the bulk of payments are going to persons who don't have a legitimate claim to them is to declare absolute ignorance of the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:There is a world of difference between someone genuinely crippled and this con man. (What? No one checked his medical records? No one checked in with his doctor? They just took his word for it?)
The problem is that many medical problems are quite hard to fully diagnose, and some doctors are willing to sign off after hearing a list of symptoms. When large numbers of fraudulent claims have been identified, it's generally been because one guy got caught, and this prompted them to check everyone that his doctor signed off on.
Punish the con man for being a con man. Don't punish the cripple for being a cripple.
Yeah, pretty much. Taking that one instance of fraud and assuming it is representative of the whole system is pretty flawed, but then using that as an argument that welfare payments should be lowered is just plain incoherent.
The size of welfare payments is one issue, the level of fraud in the system and how to minimise it is quite another. One can be in favour of tighter controls of welfare, while opposed to reducing in welfare. Or indeed, the opposite, which is my position - I'm opposed to tighter controls on welfare (as the controls in place already cost a lot more than the level of fraud they remove from the system), but in favour of reduced direct welfare payments for the unemployed*, because I believe it is very generous, and the other forms of welfare like paid parental leave and child payments and the like are completely absurd.
*Those suffering injuries that prevent them working should have benefits at least as high as they presently receive, that is a tough life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:You make a great point CT, but there seriously needs to be much better monitoring, inspecting or some kind of oversight.
Just think of the waste that could be eliminated. If you incurred some additional costs, the waste you eliminate could more
than cover them.
Have you ever seen any study that measured the level of fraud. Or are you just guessing that it must be really high?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:So rather than decreasing the benefits, shouldn't you want to increase the regulation? I certainly would agree that effective regulation is needed to cut down on fraud. But then again, given the inherent and irrational fear many people have regarding anything regulatory, I'm not sure how that'll be responded to.
Ah, but this is regulation dedicated to controlling the great unwashed. We're always in favour of stuff to keep those nutjobs in their place.
Meanwhile, poor regulation let Bernie Madoff steal about $60 billion from people. But we're opposed to regulation on the financial sector. But getting some unemployed guy to come in for an interview to establish he really is looking for work... well we're all going to assume that'll save billions. No need for anyone to actually look at any numbers confirming that or anything else, we'll just assume its true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Yes.
I love that in your world there are people who hear that a quadriplegic can get 100 pounds a week without having to look for work, and that totally looks like a decent life, but those people will stop and reconsider if it gets cut to 80 pounds.
It is a remarkable world you live in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mstersmith3 wrote:Wait he did a back flip skiing and gets paid? See that is self inflicted. I see a need for a "Darwin" regulation. If proven to be half slowed you get squat.
Yes, it was probably a stupid thing he did. But the reality remains that we don't let people starve to death because they once did something stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:My point was that £40K per year just for being alive is not 'not much', and that the fact that there are people who consider that to be the case in this country is shocking to me. It's a lot of money, and the man in question hasn't earned it.
The £40K per year wasn't just cash in the hand, it included support for his entirely fictitious back injury. Now, because he was a fraud that money might was entirely wasted, but it doesn't mean such support for genuine invalids isn't only justified, but badly needed.
The plain reality is that it costs a lot to give someone an apartment they can live comfortably in when they've got a serious back injury. Guide dogs for the blind cost a lot of money. Mental health care costs a lot of money. If we are to attempt to make these people's lives as enjoyable as possible, there will be a hefty bill. There's just no way around that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:As for £40k being generous. Is this money taxable? If my salary was £40,000 pa then i would get a heck of a lot less to live on after taxes and NI. And still have to pay for my housing etc.
But he isn't just getting £40k to spend as he pleased. That number was the total spent on him to give him support for his fictitious injury. It included a lot of stuff that people with chronic back complaints need just to make their lives bearable like furniture modifications.
And for the record, payments received as compensation for the lost of body functionality, such as the loss of an arm or a serious spinal injury, are tax exempt payments. But payments received in compensation for lost income are taxable.
Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.
Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:I don't think that anyone said that was the case, I certainly didn't. Disabled people and those with specific learning difficulties DO get freebies, though. Students who are dyslexic or who have ADHD (etc.) at our University get £1000 to buy a laptop and accessories, plus free books, a digital dictaphone... I personally know a girl with ME who was given the use of a specially-adapted car (fuel costs met), a newly-refurbished house in a nice area (again, costs met by the taxpayer), not to mention a top-of-the-range wheelchair, all the pain meds she can eat and a 3 month stay in a specialist pain spa clinic in Bath, as well as tax relief and Disability Living Allowance. She could probably work, but where's the incentive? That is an extraordinary level of profligacy on the welfare state's part, and we do it so we can feel good about ourselves. When you get down to it, that's the reason.
I agree that the payments given to people with minor disabilities are quite ludicrous, and should be cut entirely.
The plain reality is that it costs a lot to give someone an apartment they can live comfortably in when they've got a serious back injury.
That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care. By the same token, people who are more hostile to the idea might see that amount of money as a waste - prejudice runs both ways. Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:
Guide dogs for the blind cost a lot of money. Mental health care costs a lot of money. If we are to attempt to make these people's lives as enjoyable as possible, there will be a hefty bill.
Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.
Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.
For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.
In and advisor interview, if they give you details of any vacancies, they do not follow through and check you have done anything with them, if they do, your claim to have spoken with the employer etc, is taken as read. Their job is done and you can continue to claim.
The jobcentre isnt about getting you back into work and off benefits, the staff aren't there to challenge you or to meaningfully assist you, they do their job, by rote.
'Have you done any paid or unpaid work in the last 2 weeks?' 'Okay, sign here'. That's as much as you get.
These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.
Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.
Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.
For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.
In and advisor interview, if they give you details of any vacancies, they do not follow through and check you have done anything with them, if they do, your claim to have spoken with the employer etc, is taken as read. Their job is done and you can continue to claim.
The jobcentre isnt about getting you back into work and off benefits, the staff aren't there to challenge you or to meaningfully assist you, they do their job, by rote.
'Have you done any paid or unpaid work in the last 2 weeks?' 'Okay, sign here'. That's as much as you get.
Yeah, I can vouch for this, having seen this sort of thing on many occasions. Jobcentres are scum-infested gak-holes, and the staff don't seem interested in doing their job. In fact, all too often there seems to be this weird situation whereby, if you play ball and do everything you're supposed to, your life is harder than if you're a scummy tramp who marches in stinking of booze demanding 'your' giro money. I have seen this with my own eyes - cause enough trouble and they will give you what you want just to shut you up and/or get you the feth out of there. Nice, polite people who are genuinely looking for work seem to face much tougher questioning, in my experience.
These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.
Oh, the rules should be waaay stricter, down to things like personal appearance and hygiene in jobseeker interviews, not to mention alcohol and substance abuse. Turn up drunk, looking and smelling like gak? No money for a fortnight. There are people who genuinely go to the jobcentre to look for work, and who need support - those people shouldn't have to put up with an intimidating atmosphere. For me, a jobcentre is like A&E - I would never go to one unless it was completely unavoidable. It shouldn't be like that.
George Spiggott wrote:Either what they get is fine or they get too much, you can't choose both.
The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?
I support Cameron's efforts to reform our wellfare system, and I am convinced that any reforms will still allow people to be warm, well fed and clothed.
Is that better?
And anyway, were clearly aware of my position on numerous things, what's yours exactly? I have told you how I feel, do you think that if some bloke lives in a house in Kensington and his rent is 3 grand a month, then he falls down a well and stops working we should be paying his rent?!
Cant he just move? You can support reforms and a common sense approach and not want people to starve to death.
I want people to have to have to put some bloody effort in thats all, not contract rickets and sleep in the gutter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Yes.
I love that in your world there are people who hear that a quadriplegic can get 100 pounds a week without having to look for work, and that totally looks like a decent life, but those people will stop and reconsider if it gets cut to 80 pounds.
It is a remarkable world you live in.
To be fair mate, that was a one word answer cos I was on my phone and getting pissed in the pub.
What I basically meant to say is...
Well.. see above. I do in essence want the state to spend less. But that can be achieved without making people live off gruel and sleep in a bus shelter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!
Not everyone has the abs to do the full monty...
Pah! As If I would lower myself to doing such a degrading job!
I will have you know I am employed doing immensely gratifying and rewarding work mopping the floors in an adult movie cinema.
sebster wrote:as the controls in place already cost a lot more than the level of fraud they remove from the system
I just really wanted to highlight this point again.
people think that if you crack down on fraud, you would reap this huge windfall by reducing waste. Sadly, that's not true. Employee the investigators and following the paper trail to finally get the burden of proff required to eliminate fraud would cost more than the amount of fraud that occurs. Plus, the fines/prison terms will always take second fiddle to more serious crimes.
However, like airport security; some enforcement theatre is required to keep any old opportunitist from ripping off the system. However, instigating more byzantine and draconian anti-fraud reforms would serve NO purpose except helping people feel a bit of catharsis from stories like the one the original poster cites.
Plus, more anit-fraud reforms = bigger government! Scary!
Edit: Also, most people in poverty are obese because mass produced crap food is uber cheap and available now. Compare the cost of a can of Chef Bouyarde to the cost of the components that you would have to buy to go into the equivalent. It's actual veggies, fruits, and fresh meats that are more expensive and don't keep as long now-a-days.
BrassScorpion wrote:The US does not even provide a top-notch health care delivery system much less a decent social safety net.
You and I are in total agreement there! U.S. Healthcare SUCKS unless you are a multimillionaire, the social safety nets are a joke, and there are tons of people who think we do TOO MUCH!
These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.
Oh, the rules should be waaay stricter, down to things like personal appearance and hygiene in jobseeker interviews, not to mention alcohol and substance abuse. Turn up drunk, looking and smelling like gak? No money for a fortnight. There are people who genuinely go to the jobcentre to look for work, and who need support - those people shouldn't have to put up with an intimidating atmosphere. For me, a jobcentre is like A&E - I would never go to one unless it was completely unavoidable. It shouldn't be like that.
It would be far better if Jobcentres were run as employment agencies or have that kind of framework, mentality and professionalism. Give a gak and maybe your claimants will too.
I also think support should be extended for when claimants get jobs. Since you can look at anything up to 8 weeks for your first wages to get paid. 'Thanks for getting back into employment and paying tax and NI again. We'll make sure you aren't living on fresh air for the next month'.
(Subject to checks on your employment status).
BrassScorpion wrote:The US does not even provide a top-notch health care delivery system much less a decent social safety net.
You and I are in total agreement there! U.S. Healthcare SUCKS unless you are a multimillionaire, the social safety nets are a joke, and there are tons of people who think we do TOO MUCH!
Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great. I also believe in my heart that many social programs are designed to keep the lower class, IN the lower class. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly wouldn't make it a plank in a political platform.
mattyrm wrote:The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?
I support Cameron's efforts to reform our wellfare system, and I am convinced that any reforms will still allow people to be warm, well fed and clothed.
Is that better?
I think we've long since established that you don't want them to starve, I don't think anyone has accued you of that. When it comes to the specifics of what you do want, other than to support whatever Cameron says you seem a little more nebulous.
mattyrm wrote:And anyway, were clearly aware of my position on numerous things, what's yours exactly?
There's something deeply wrong with the social housing situation, I think that the state should pay for the accomodation of those who cannot support themselves. However there is something deeply wrong with the cycle of money out of public hands and into private hands. Furthermore, the sale of social housing to individuals (which I support) must be balanced by the building of new properties to replace them. This is the fundamental problem with the Right to Buy scheme that nobody is really interested in fixing.
To use this case as an example (and ignoring the fact that he was not entitled to it for the moment): I don't mind that they pay all his rent, I do mind that his rent was £70,000. But then I'm from up north, not from that London so I'm not fully in the picture. I'm not aware of any policy to realign the way that asylum seekers are distributed though the country so I don't see how Camerons changes will fix this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Jobcentres were run in a way that would cut out the loathsome 'temp agencies' then that would be a great thing indeed, not only for Jobseekers but also for the industries that they work for.
Albatross wrote:That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care.
No, I've seen how much money it actually costs to provide support for someone with a serious disability. Way back in the day I was sounding off about how important tort reform was, after some guy here in Australia won a couple of million after a company's negligence made him a quadriplegic, and I thought that was way too much money. Except one of the guys listening was presently completing a study into the costs of workplace injuries in Australia, and he sat me down with a list of costings for what it took to give these people a decent life, from modified housing (a modified kitchen will set you back $50k easy, a modified bathroom another $35k), to carers (part time care for 20 years is $400k), on-going physio (for 5 or more years you're looking at another $100k) and countless little things you would never think of until you're the one stuck in that situation.
Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:
Yes, it sure is a lot of money. No argument there. My point is that this idea that the person is living the easy life on welfare is nonsense. Once a person loses a basic function like mobility or their sight, it costs a lot of money to give them a decent life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.
For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.
See, you're putting the bull before the horns. What you've done there is offer evidence for the claim "it is easy to defraud the system of welfare" and used that to assume "therefore there is loads of welfare fraud".
As an example, consider a shopowner putting a stand of lollies out the front of his store, people would put a pound in the slot and take a bag of lollies. The owner can't really see the stand from his spot in the store, it runs on an honour system. By your reasoning above, you'd have to tell that shopowner that theft was incredibly easy, and that the system must be reformed. The shop owner replies "but I check the numbers every night, and I can tell you theft is very rare."
That's the actual, real thing that matters - the actual amount of theft. And we know that in the UK the amount of fraudulent payments is about 50,000 people per year, or just a tick under 1% of total recipients, and that includes people that were entitled to some amount of payment but mislead in their claims to access more money, so the total dollars paid out that are fraudulent is well under 1%. A similar study in the US show that about 1.9% of total welfare paid out is fraudulent.
Now, if fraud is as easy as you claim, why isn't it more common? Possibly a lot more people are a lot more honest than you have assumed. Possibly the motivation just isn't there, claiming an extra 30 pounds isn't worth the risk of getting caught and losing access to payments at all, and maybe facing jail time. Maybe a lot of people just aren't that tuned into gaming the system (this one makes a lot of sense, given how many people actually fail to claim all the money they are entitled to). I don't know, but the simple fact is you have to start and finish with one final set of numbers, how much fraud is actually going on, and that number, in the UK, is less than 1%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?
I definitely agree with you there, the amount paid is more than sufficient. I think the issue comes from the payments being set around the assumption of being enough money to exist on indefinitely, when really welfare should be enough money to survive on for a short period of unemployment, and not more.
Reducing the benefit is not unthinkable, and would save considerable money, and I think is a reasonable course of action. Sounding off about welfare fraud is simply not.
I suspect Cameron knows this as well, and is just sounding off about welfare fraud because it's an easier political sell.
To be fair mate, that was a one word answer cos I was on my phone and getting pissed in the pub.
What I basically meant to say is...
Well.. see above. I do in essence want the state to spend less. But that can be achieved without making people live off gruel and sleep in a bus shelter.
Is fair enough.
I will have you know I am employed doing immensely gratifying and rewarding work mopping the floors in an adult movie cinema.
They still have adult movie houses? In the age of the internet? Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:However, like airport security; some enforcement theatre is required to keep any old opportunitist from ripping off the system. However, instigating more byzantine and draconian anti-fraud reforms would serve NO purpose except helping people feel a bit of catharsis from stories like the one the original poster cites.
Absolutely, the argument isn't to remove fraud checks in place. The argument is simply that saying 'we're going to crack down on fraud in the system' is going to save very little money, and people should stop pretending otherwise.
Albatross wrote:That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care.
No, I've seen how much money it actually costs to provide support for someone with a serious disability. Way back in the day I was sounding off about how important tort reform was, after some guy here in Australia won a couple of million after a company's negligence made him a quadriplegic, and I thought that was way too much money. Except one of the guys listening was presently completing a study into the costs of workplace injuries in Australia, and he sat me down with a list of costings for what it took to give these people a decent life, from modified housing (a modified kitchen will set you back $50k easy, a modified bathroom another $35k), to carers (part time care for 20 years is $400k), on-going physio (for 5 or more years you're looking at another $100k) and countless little things you would never think of until you're the one stuck in that situation.
Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:
Yes, it sure is a lot of money. No argument there. My point is that this idea that the person is living the easy life on welfare is nonsense. Once a person loses a basic function like mobility or their sight, it costs a lot of money to give them a decent life.
A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.
And we know that in the UK the amount of fraudulent payments is about 50,000 people per year, or just a tick under 1% of total recipients, and that includes people that were entitled to some amount of payment but mislead in their claims to access more money, so the total dollars paid out that are fraudulent is well under 1%. A similar study in the US show that about 1.9% of total welfare paid out is fraudulent.
Now, if fraud is as easy as you claim, why isn't it more common? Possibly a lot more people are a lot more honest than you have assumed. Possibly the motivation just isn't there, claiming an extra 30 pounds isn't worth the risk of getting caught and losing access to payments at all, and maybe facing jail time. Maybe a lot of people just aren't that tuned into gaming the system (this one makes a lot of sense, given how many people actually fail to claim all the money they are entitled to). I don't know, but the simple fact is you have to start and finish with one final set of numbers, how much fraud is actually going on, and that number, in the UK, is less than 1%.
See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.
The truth is, a person may on paper have a perfectly legitimate claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and they may not actually be breaking any laws by claiming - the only thing that may be lacking is not the opportunity to work, but the motivation. Simply claiming benefits whilst also working is not the only kind of fraud. Sitting on your arse collecting money from the government, all the while blaming 'the credit crunch' or 'the recession' for the fact that you haven't filled out an application form in months is also a type of fraud, in my eyes.
Albatross wrote:A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.
No, it isn't. Go to your kitchen tonight, and make dinner from the confines of a wheelchair. Find out how many tasks are completely impossible. Now find out how expensive it is to get fridges
See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.
Welfare fraud is putting a statement on your claim form that isn't true, in order to get more money than you deserve. It isn't ambiguous at all. It could be that you mislead about the relationship between yourself and your partner, so you both get single person's allowance, or you claim an injury you don't have, or (most commonly) you fail to declare income you earned in order to keep claiming full benefits.
And it isn't my claim, it's the finding of the 3,000 people in the UK who work full time tracking welfare fraud and building cases for prosecution.
The truth is, a person may on paper have a perfectly legitimate claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and they may not actually be breaking any laws by claiming - the only thing that may be lacking is not the opportunity to work, but the motivation. Simply claiming benefits whilst also working is not the only kind of fraud. Sitting on your arse collecting money from the government, all the while blaming 'the credit crunch' or 'the recession' for the fact that you haven't filled out an application form in months is also a type of fraud, in my eyes.
Which is certainly a problem, but it isn't one that you'll solve by sounding off about welfare fraud.
Albatross wrote:A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.
No, it isn't. Go to your kitchen tonight, and make dinner from the confines of a wheelchair. Find out how many tasks are completely impossible. Now find out how expensive it is to get fridges
Right, so I can get a normal kitchen for around 10 grand, now I'm in a wheelchair and all-of-a-sudden the price shoots up by 500%!? Please explain that to me, because I did a little bit of browsing to find advice on 'accessable' kitchens earlier, and the ball-park figures were a fraction of that.
See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.
Welfare fraud is putting a statement on your claim form that isn't true, in order to get more money than you deserve. It isn't ambiguous at all. It could be that you mislead about the relationship between yourself and your partner, so you both get single person's allowance, or you claim an injury you don't have, or (most commonly) you fail to declare income you earned in order to keep claiming full benefits.
And it isn't my claim, it's the finding of the 3,000 people in the UK who work full time tracking welfare fraud and building cases for prosecution.
DWP wrote:For 2010/11, it is estimated that 2.1 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. This is down from the 2009/10 level of 2.2%.
The estimated value of overpayments is £3.3bn which is the same value as in 2009/10.
The DWP paper also mentions that fraud, for the purpose of DWP statistics, is defined as having met three criteria, the third of which is having one's benefit stopped based on a review of of the claim, which means it only counts as 'fraud' if you're caught. Which is interesting, and highlights a potential problem with the use of quantitative data in this context, as does this statement:
The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by it's very nature, a covert activity....and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven.*
*taken from the pdf.
Of course, supporters of welfare will dismiss qualitative data that suggests widespread gaming of the system takes place as just 'anecdotal', but building an argument on quantitative data which is reliant upon a definition of fraud as 'that which is identified and proven' seems like faulty methodology to me.
Albatross wrote:Right, so I can get a normal kitchen for around 10 grand, now I'm in a wheelchair and all-of-a-sudden the price shoots up by 500%!? Please explain that to me, because I did a little bit of browsing to find advice on 'accessable' kitchens earlier, and the ball-park figures were a fraction of that.
You can get a normal kitchen for 10 grand? I knew Australian building costs were high, but here you're looking at a lot more than that for anything that isn't a hole filled with charcoal.
That might be part of the problem, and I was thinking in Aussie dollars when I said 50,000, so it'd be more like 25,000 pounds. My bad there.
Still, I'm really getting an 'anything I don't understand is easy and cheap' kind of vibe. Is it too much to just accept that's what it costs to give someone without the use of their legs a kitchen? I mean, it isn't even that big a part of the cost, being a one-off expense. Compare it to on-going physio, and carers.
Are you going to claim those things aren't necessary?
DWP wrote:For 2010/11, it is estimated that 2.1 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. This is down from the 2009/10 level of 2.2%.
The estimated value of overpayments is £3.3bn which is the same value as in 2009/10.
The DWP paper also mentions that fraud, for the purpose of DWP statistics, is defined as having met three criteria, the third of which is having one's benefit stopped based on a review of of the claim, which means it only counts as 'fraud' if you're caught. Which is interesting, and highlights a potential problem with the use of quantitative data in this context, as does this statement:
The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by it's very nature, a covert activity....and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven.*
*taken from the pdf.
Of course, supporters of welfare will dismiss qualitative data that suggests widespread gaming of the system takes place as just 'anecdotal', but building an argument on quantitative data which is reliant upon a definition of fraud as 'that which is identified and proven' seems like faulty methodology to me.
If you are aware of methodology that could be put in place that could identify such fraud, then you'd do well to recommend it to government, and then we'll get to see if there's really dollars to be saved in cracking down on fraud.
Most contractors working for government departments would have higher set prices for their products hence why aids for the disabled and the infirm, such as kitchens are higher than if brought by private individuals.
This is the same issue that blights the NHS.
Here the system of purchasing needs to be changed to deliver value for money. Thus easing the burden on the state.
As for fraud, fraud would be easy, not many people do it. But, you still have a system in place where it seems that fraudsters, the lazy and genuine hard working people are all dealt with by a system that at best is indifferent.
Not to mention, specialty gear can not/is not mass produced as cheaply.
If you dedicate a whole line to creating a niche product, that is a line tht isn't being used to sell mass market crap. Therefore, to make up the difference, you charge more for the niche stuff.
You have to make up the lower sales volume with higher mark-up.
Easy E wrote:Not to mention, specialty gear can not/is not mass produced as cheaply.
If you dedicate a whole line to creating a niche product, that is a line tht isn't being used to sell mass market crap. Therefore, to make up the difference, you charge more for the niche stuff.
You have to make up the lower sales volume with higher mark-up.
Yeah Capitalism.
Concrete for ramps is a niche product?, hand rails?
LOL at the conceit that someone defrauding the state constitutes proof that being on benefits pays well to the "genuinely" disabled. That's just utterly ridiculous.
In order to properly defraud a large amount of money, one is required to lie, deceive and inveigle, creating an alternate existence that ticks exactly the right boxes to qualify for as many layers of benefit as possible. Amazingly enough, disabilities rarely fit so neatly into all the right boxes. Anyone with the right level of cunning could create a fictional "disabled life" which would open a plethora of doors. But we aren't talking about people with execptional greed, dishonesty and cunning. We are talking about everyday non-criminal folk who happen to be disabled. Thus, they will not tick all the right boxes, will not receive vast amounts of funds, will not appear in the Volkischer Beobachter as an example to be reviled.
Disability Benefit Fraud is 0.2 percent of the whole. There is more money left aside in unclaimed benefits than is lost in that fraud by a massive amount, and disability hate crimes are actually on the rise due to ludicrous suppositions like the OP, and equally hate-filled hyperbole from the national media. The disabled in general have moved from being pitiable victims to reviled scroungers, and it is almost entirely because people with a very limited knowledge of the benefits system believe that singular examples constitute the whole. By picking up the worst cases of fraud, or the extreme examples of high cost rents or oversized families claiming Child Benefit and publicising them, the media are achieving exactly the same thing that the Nazis were trying to do with their propaganda. By inventing figures and creating "shock" headlines that are so much bullcrap, the media does nothing to combat fraud, but everything to create hatred for one of the most vulnerable parts of society by definition.
Mr Spiggot is quite correct: The "new" testing actually removes the need for medical evidence, and replaces it with a mere observational test based on a computerised checklist, in order to "fail" as many claimants as possible. The reasons for this are predominantly because the private contractor is paid to do this. (Atos Healthcare.) A simple google should provide more than enough damning evidence against this company, the American branch of which was found guilty of "disability denial" and insurance fraud in several Americam states. (Unum.) Unum have been heavily involved in the new privatised version of disability benefits in the UK, DESPITE that fraud. (Perhaps even because of it.) The entire process is a shabby attempt to screw money out of the state by Atos. Who exactly is defrauding the tax-payer at 10k a go? The poor disabled person who is foolish enough to be honest about his health, or the multinational corporation that is costing the state more money than it saves in its farcical "testing"?
Research more. Or better yet, get hit by a car tomorrow and then try to claim back some of the national insurance you paid in to the system which you thought would be there as a safety net.
So what I gathered from those is:
Plumbing mounted in the wall or further back.
Lower counter tops, looked like a restaurant dish sprayer in one...hardly essential
side open oven mounted more at eyelevel
stop top with front mounted controls
drawer style dishwasher
side open fridge
Other than the side open oven which isn't common (at least in the US) these are not specialty items. were I to do a kitchen remodel tomorrow I might not worry about the plumbing or counter height, but everything else I'd use (or am currently using). I fail to see how the example of a wheelchair accessible kitchen shows the high cost of niche market disability goods...I'd be surprised if the cost was more than 20% of a normal remodel, and I see no reason a standard remodel contractor couldn't do the work. If the argument is that a dedicated handicap accessible contractor can command a niche market I say to you...especially in a down economy as a re modeller I'd underbid you and get the job 8 days of the week...
Maybe I missed and essential point in the text wall.
Why does fitting a regular kitchen cost as much as it does?
Any nerk with a spanner could change a wheel, so why does a mechanic charge so much?
Any nerk with a concrete mixer can lay "a ramp", so why does it cost so much to make a building wheelchair accessible?
Why does a fraudulent Chinese factory owner charge so much less for his own cast of a GW figure, despite the fact that its exactly identical to the one GW paid for them to make?
Why is it that a set of "sensory lights" for an Autistic child cost 8 or 9 times the price of a set of "Christmas lights" despite the fact that they are exactly the same item built in the very same building?
Any fitter who specialises in "disabled items" is going to charge a premium way above the actual cost, in exactly the same way that any contractor selling materials to a government department will overcharge way above unit price for everything from pencils to PCs.
The fact that some people are taking the piss with prices is hardly the fault of the disabled person who requires their services. People overcharge. Next argument.
Here's a good one: Garage is demanding £200 pounds for the replacement of £40 pounds worth of brake pads. Why is that exactly? Because people with even moderate skills like to charge for their time and "labour costs". Fitting a modified kitchen comes under "moderate skills" at the very least.
oh so now you presume to know my life better than I do, I'll file that away for when I write my memoirs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Here's a good one: Garage is demanding £200 pounds for the replacement of £40 pounds worth of brake pads. Why is that exactly? Because people with even moderate skills like to charge for their time and "labour costs". Fitting a modified kitchen comes under "moderate skills" at the very least.
That really wasn't the point. The point was that you are charged 200 quid for your brakes because it requires a skilled person, now you take it to me...and for the purposes of this argument you own a Renault. Because you have a clear disability (you own a Renault) I now charge you 1000 quid for the same work. THATS what were talking about. Not that paying someone costs money.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Here's a good one: Garage is demanding £200 pounds for the replacement of £40 pounds worth of brake pads. Why is that exactly? Because people with even moderate skills like to charge for their time and "labour costs". Fitting a modified kitchen comes under "moderate skills" at the very least.
A fitter or a plumber or an electricians rates should be the same no matter if the height of light switch or tap was lower, hell, you are getting LESS material, not more. Makers can get more out of their material.
That still isn't the fault of the person paying for the service though. The average large town or even city will have at best a single store that specializes in "Disabled Equipment". The number of kitchen fitters who do this kind of work under contract from the local authority will be incredibly small, and WILL charge a premium. Honestly, has nobody here ever actually dealt with a tradesman before?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fairness, it isn't even necessarily the "fault" of the OP fraudster that the fittings he claimed for were extortionately priced. He claimed for what was available, which happens to be expensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The astronomical charges made for certain services are not set by the people receiving the benefits, fraudulently or not. Council Tax Benefit is expensive. The Local Authority determines that, not the person claiming the benefit. Rents in North London are solid gold theft because houses in London are made of diamonds and precious metals (apparently.) Still not the fault of the claimant, who has zero say in what rent he is charged.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Here's a good one: Garage is demanding £200 pounds for the replacement of £40 pounds worth of brake pads. Why is that exactly? Because people with even moderate skills like to charge for their time and "labour costs". Fitting a modified kitchen comes under "moderate skills" at the very least.
A fitter or a plumber or an electricians rates should be the same no matter if the height of light switch or tap was lower, hell, you are getting LESS material, not more. Makers can get more out of their material.
I will say that hiding the plumbing the way I see it in KKs links is a pricey undertaking, not like astronomical but rerouting the plumbing and creating an access point requires more messing around than one might think.
This cartoon covers part of the problem pretty well. Amazing that there are even middle class people who think it's acceptable to just let someone die and I'll bet their attitude is suddenly different when they discover that their own health insurance doesn't cover the life-saving procedure they need or maybe their children or spouse needs. I hope they have fun telling their own kids just "suck it up", health care's a privilege and not a basic human need everyone should get.
As does this satire from The Onion. Nails down the problem of spending all the money on punishment instead of crime prevention (and ads a joke of course as well) in less than a minute:
As does this satire from The Onion. Nails down the problem of spending all the money on punishment instead of crime prevention (and ads a joke of course as well) in less than a minute:
AustonT wrote:None of that is even tangentially related.
Yeah, and a bolter shell isn't even tangentially related to a boltgun.
mmhmm, mmhmm. /Nods
I can see how the prison system and crime prevention, and an (American) Left wing political cartoon relates directly to Britain's labyrinthine social welfare system.
You should be a doctor.
"Nurse this man has cancer in his liver! Cut out his wife's heart"
Because the attitude of the character depicted is quite similar to the attitudes that the disabled are currently facing? If its not "Tough Titty, not my problem", its condescending pity and just enough "help" to salve the social conscience that the "genuinely disabled" are getting help.
And what does that even mean? You are either disabled or a fraud. There is no "Fraudulently Disabled". Its a ridiculous term.
But then look at it from the other perspective, how is the fact that tradesmen are unscrupulous robbing scum who will scalp you for your last brass farthing given a chance really related to how well served the disabled are by the system? All that has been established so far is that it is possible in some circumstances, to receive full payment for services rendered, if one is willing to lie, cheat, obfuscate and inveigle. All this business about over-pricing is a distraction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That work was over-priced. Thus the disabled get an easy ride". Its a bit of an odd conclusion to come to.
AustonT wrote:I can see how the prison system and crime prevention, and an (American) Left wing political cartoon relates directly to Britain's labyrinthine social welfare system.
Ah, sarcasm. But I already know you can't see how that cartoon relates, and it's kinda sad really.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:"That work was over-priced. Thus the disabled get an easy ride". Its a bit of an odd conclusion to come to.
I think really the issue is why it costs so much and why we(erm, you) allow it. Let's dispose of the argument that the government should/shouldn't provide the service, yours does. I don't have a pound symbol so I'll use "quid." Im pretty sure I saw the number 50,000 quid thrown out for a disabled kitchen remodel and 10,000 quid for a regular one. If I saw that as a published number I wouldn't say the disabled had an easy ride I'd ask myself why that cost seems so inflated. I'd especially become suspicious if someone without government assistance could get the same remodel done for, oh lets be generous and say 20,000 quid. Double the cost of a standard remodel, and still less than half of the government cost. Unless you an provide a reason why the same contractor that makes a walking kitchen cant make a disabled kitchen I'm wondering why the government goes out for this specialty contractor. Not that the disabled get an easy ride, that the government by wasting 30,000 quid has cheated the disabled out of 30,000 quid of additional support in other areas. If you cut unnecessary spending you increase overall benefits, its not a hard concept. Further if that were a real situation the Crown should prosecute the 50k quid man for defrauding the government.
AustonT wrote:Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great.
But America is the least hungry country in the world. Is Somalia being made great by their hunger?
Make more sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Other than the side open oven which isn't common (at least in the US) these are not specialty items. were I to do a kitchen remodel tomorrow I might not worry about the plumbing or counter height, but everything else I'd use (or am currently using). I fail to see how the example of a wheelchair accessible kitchen shows the high cost of niche market disability goods...I'd be surprised if the cost was more than 20% of a normal remodel, and I see no reason a standard remodel contractor couldn't do the work. If the argument is that a dedicated handicap accessible contractor can command a niche market I say to you...especially in a down economy as a re modeller I'd underbid you and get the job 8 days of the week...
Maybe I missed and essential point in the text wall.
Look at the amount of space the kitchen takes up. Consider the difficulty of moving a wheelchair around in such a confined space. Now consider that homes in the UK are about a third the size of US homes. Now consider the cost of taking a wall out to open up the dining area to give that kitchen the space needed to move a wheelchair around.
I mean hey, I've worked in government a long time, I know contractors will hike their prices up when they're giving a government agency a quote, but you're seeing 20 or 30% at most, though admittedly certain agencies like social services I could see being prone to considerable price hikes. So, ultimately, if someone actually undertook a study and found that government was paying well and truly more than needed, I'd be happy to believe them.
But what we've got here is just a bunch of people who always assume government is wasteful and pays too much, looking at a number and assume the same thing they always assume, that government is wasteful and paying too much, and then using that as evidence to support their assumption that government is wasteful and pays too much for stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:That really wasn't the point. The point was that you are charged 200 quid for your brakes because it requires a skilled person, now you take it to me...and for the purposes of this argument you own a Renault. Because you have a clear disability (you own a Renault) I now charge you 1000 quid for the same work. THATS what were talking about. Not that paying someone costs money.
Umm, you would pay more to have a Renault or other fairly obscure car serviced, because it requires a specialised skillset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:A fitter or a plumber or an electricians rates should be the same no matter if the height of light switch or tap was lower, hell, you are getting LESS material, not more. Makers can get more out of their material.
The economy hasn't been driven by materials shortage for 50 years, arguably before then.
What costs money is getting something done custom. This is something that everybody who as ever bought something should know. I mean, seriously, go to Ikea and look around for a wine rack, and you'll see pretty reasonable prices. Then contact your local carpenter and ask him for a bespoke design, that perfectly fits the space you have in your house. The difference in price will be massive.
The modern economy is built around the idea that simple, repeatable tasks can be done very quickly, and with minimal lead up time. Once you move outside that mode and get into specialised design, prices go up dramatically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Because the attitude of the character depicted is quite similar to the attitudes that the disabled are currently facing? If its not "Tough Titty, not my problem", its condescending pity and just enough "help" to salve the social conscience that the "genuinely disabled" are getting help.
Except while people have complained about the cost, there's been (thankfully) very little of the 'feth 'em they ought to look after themselves' rhetoric you often see in these kinds of threads.
And what does that even mean? You are either disabled or a fraud. There is no "Fraudulently Disabled". Its a ridiculous term.
It means that your act of fraud is in pretending to be disabled.
AustonT wrote:Other than the side open oven which isn't common (at least in the US) these are not specialty items. were I to do a kitchen remodel tomorrow I might not worry about the plumbing or counter height, but everything else I'd use (or am currently using). I fail to see how the example of a wheelchair accessible kitchen shows the high cost of niche market disability goods...I'd be surprised if the cost was more than 20% of a normal remodel, and I see no reason a standard remodel contractor couldn't do the work. If the argument is that a dedicated handicap accessible contractor can command a niche market I say to you...especially in a down economy as a re modeller I'd underbid you and get the job 8 days of the week...
Maybe I missed and essential point in the text wall.
Look at the amount of space the kitchen takes up. Consider the difficulty of moving a wheelchair around in such a confined space. Now consider that homes in the UK are about a third the size of US homes. Now consider the cost of taking a wall out to open up the dining area to give that kitchen the space needed to move a wheelchair around.
This apparently is a handiaccesable kitchen in the UK. I still don't see any item that could not be purchased off the shelf, or a 900 sq ft kitchen.
sebster wrote:
AustonT wrote:That really wasn't the point. The point was that you are charged 200 quid for your brakes because it requires a skilled person, now you take it to me...and for the purposes of this argument you own a Renault. Because you have a clear disability (you own a Renault) I now charge you 1000 quid for the same work. THATS what were talking about. Not that paying someone costs money.
Umm, you would pay more to have a Renault or other fairly obscure car serviced, because it requires a specialised skillset.
I find it hard to believe a car brand consistently a top seller in the 90's and strong through the 2000's is a "fairly obscure car", but I'm sure anyone who actually lives in the UK could shed light on that.
dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
AustonT wrote:Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great.
But America is the least hungry country in the world. Is Somalia being made great by their hunger?
I have the same question.
That must be why America is in decline.
Somalia won't be made great by anything...unless khet booms in a worldwide market.
AustonT wrote: This apparently is a handiaccesable kitchen in the UK. I still don't see any item that could not be purchased off the shelf, or a 900 sq ft kitchen.
Anything I don't understand is easy to do. Why getting to the moon just needs enough diet coke and mentos, all the rest is NASA just ripping off the government.
I find it hard to believe a car brand consistently a top seller in the 90's and strong through the 2000's is a "fairly obscure car", but I'm sure anyone who actually lives in the UK could shed light on that.
There's crap all Renaults over here, so I was going with that. It doesn't matter, pick another car brand that actually is obscure in your area. Notice how it's more expensive.
You want an actual example, my first car when I was a student was a Mazda 121. Tiny thing, and in mass production. Funny thing was, though, that being a very small car it used very small tyres. It was very strange to get the tyres replaced, and see I was paying more for my small tyres than medium sized cars paid for their tyres. The biggest issue with the tyres on my car was that they were relatively rare, even though it was a big selling car, they were specific to my car and only a couple of others like it, compared to medium size tyres that were common to many cars.
By the logic so many people in this thread want to embrace, my tyres used less rubber, and so should have been cheaper. But without the cost savings of really massive scales of production, they remained fairly expensive tyres.
This just a thing people need to accept. It really can't be denied.
That must be why America is in decline. Somalia won't be made great by anything...unless khet booms in a worldwide market.
But they're hungry, and yet they're not expanding, and growing. It's almost as if 'hunger makes you great' is a useless bit of sloganeering that doesn't really mean anything.
It's almost as if effective, highly productive economic systems are the absolute determinant of wealth, and everything is people just making stuff up to pat themselves on the back, or excuse themselves from helping other people.
AustonT wrote:
That must be why America is in decline.
Somalia won't be made great by anything...unless khet booms in a worldwide market.
Right, but that's the point. Somalia is a hungry, desperate place filled with hungry, desperate people that's not going to improve because of the structural limitations imposed by geography and politics. Hunger and desperation aren't enough, or even positive. Hungry, desperate people don't work to build a stable, prosperous society, hungry, desperate people cling to what little they have for fear of losing it (peasants), or stab each other over stale bread in a Baltimore alley.
AustonT wrote:
That must be why America is in decline.
Somalia won't be made great by anything...unless khet booms in a worldwide market.
Hungry, desperate people don't work to build a stable, prosperous society, hungry, desperate people cling to what little they have for fear of losing it (peasants), or stab each other over stale bread in a Baltimore alley.
Hey steady on, I've seen The Wire! Baltimore looks lovely..
Well, I think its been safely established that disabled people get horribly overcharged for services. (Which is the case.) That suggests that provisions for the disabled are anything but adequate, because being disabled is more expensive than not being.
This is actually the point of "Disability Living Allowance".. a non-means tested benefit designed to help with the additional costs accrued by being disabled.
BrassScorpion wrote:This cartoon covers part of the problem pretty well.
No it doesn't.
Its not funny either, which should be the point of a cartoon.
It tells a ridiculously simplistic side of the story, and as most people with any sense know, the middle ground is where the common sense is usually at.
In real life, weights don't magically fall on your head. The worst thing that happens is a sudden illness or death or a job loss. And half the time they are self inflicted. Perhaps you are too fat, perhaps you smoke too much, perhaps your diet is terrible? Did you get drunk and go to sleep on some train tracks? Or maybe you lose your job and now your in financial trouble? Maybe you should have spent less on beer? Did you really need that new I-phone4? Did you clear your credit card every month like I do? Or did you spend 2 grand on that holiday or maybe impulse buy a new car?
There IS of course some sense behind what the occupy movement says, there is also sense behind what the suits say.
Sure you should be afforded some assistance, but the ultimate message of the suits is exactly right.
Look after yourself if your an educated adult. Live within your means, if you cant pay for it today, don't buy it today. Spend responsibly, take care of your own health, go for a jog twice a week, raise your own kids.
There is a need for state assistance, we should be helping the poor, but ultimately both sides have a point, and that gakky cartoon only tells one side of the story.
Needless to say, the "Grow a spine and be a fething adult" argument makes some sense to most people.
Of course the "grow a spine" argument rather falls on its prejudiced face when you're dealing with people who have often been disabled from birth through no fault of their own, and are unemployable in any meaningful sense. No amount of "pull yourself together" can counter Spina Biffida or Downs Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis. For that matter it falls down when presented with someone made paraplegic in a sudden unpredicable accident.. which is the point of the cartoon. A hideous crippling accident could happen to anyone at any moment, at which point they could easily become dependent on whatever the state feels inclined to offer them. The number of war vets getting shafted should be a clear indicator of that. "War" is after all one of the most likely places to be rendered disabled in a very short period of time.
If some "suits" had acted responibly, we wouldn't be up gak creek in a cardboard boat during sinking season, incidentally. "Spend within your means" as applied to international Banking? Seriously? We are supposed to take moral and economic guidance from people who caused a global recession?
ArbeitsSchu wrote: If some "suits" had acted responibly, we wouldn't be up gak creek in a cardboard boat during sinking season, incidentally. "Spend within your means" as applied to international Banking? Seriously? We are supposed to take moral and economic guidance from people who caused a global recession?
No, we are supposed to use our own common sense, I dont need any economic guidance off some investment banker, I can sort my own life out. And when did I say that I agreed with them?! Or that they were bastions of morality and we should all listen to them!? Of course they are at fault. It doesnt mean that you cant be either. Just because some tit in a suit fethed the economy up, does that mean I should max my credit card out?
As I said, there are two sides to this story, you are attempting to invoke an emotional response endlessly crowing on about Spina Biffida or Downs Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis, because they are not the majority of people who are in finanicial trouble. You know why? They arent the majority of people! How many people do you know who have got Spina Biffida?!
I know plenty who spend far too much on their credit cards, and go out on the piss when they cant afford it though.
And as I said, if you think people with severe disabilities cant afford to eat, and dont have warm houses, you are misinformed. They do.
I see homeless drunks living in boxes. Ive never once seen a bloke with Spina Bifida sleeping in a Biffa Skip. Can we just stick to facts?
You do understand that a lot of the protest is against the THREAT to remove support, don't you? For example only today, our benevolent and loving government decided that it was going to permit people in care homes to keep the extra support that allows them to travel outside of those homes, after a year of "investigating" whether this might actually be incredibly cruel and massively unfair. Even with that threat lifted, there is still the very real possibility that when they move from DLA to PIP, they will lose that money, so the threat still remains. A great many disabled people are literally terrified that what support they get will be removed because some arse in an office somewhere has decided they aren't disabled any more.
The state of the worlds finances have not and never will be the fault of the disabled, nor even the fault of the miniscule number of fraudulent claimants. Its not even the fault of the able-bodied unemployed..but again and again they are the whipping boy for Osbornes idiot ideas, the victims of IDS and his ideologically drive crusade.
And I'm glad to see that you can diagnose disability by sight alone. Maybe you should get a job with Atos doing WCA tests? They operate almost entirely on misinformation. FACTS are the last thing that they bother to look at.
You want to stick to some facts, maybe you should stop trying to use a case of fraud to prove that someone who is actually disabled can access huge amounts of cash? Its disingenuous and misleading in equal amounts.
BrassScorpion wrote:This cartoon covers part of the problem pretty well.
No it doesn't.
Its not funny either, which should be the point of a cartoon.
That cartoon should be used as a means test for our political leaders.
Let me try to explain real slow. Disabled people get disabled through little or no fault of their own. The man says they don't deserve any help. The anvil falls on said man through no fault of his own. No one helps him. He satys under the anvil because alone he can not move it, he would need help. The man being treated the way he thingks the disabled should be treated.
Let me try to explain real slow. Disabled people get disabled through little or no fault of their own. The man says they don't deserve any help. The anvil falls on said man through no fault of his own. No one helps him. He satys under the anvil because alone he can not move it, he would need help. The man being treated the way he thingks the disabled should be treated.
Thanks for that.
If it wasn't for your staggeringly astute observations and subsequent explanation I would never have understood the subtle nuanced humour of that immensely complicated hastily drawn 6 panel cartoon.
