Benefit crooks hit for £1m by Swindon Council

Swindon Advertiser: Coun Russell Holland Coun Russell Holland

BENEFIT fraudsters have been ordered to pay back nearly £1m to the council over the last three years, according to new figures revealed this week.

A Freedom of Information request by the Adver has uncovered that between 2010/11 and this month Swindon Council has managed to recover about £995,114 by tracking down people cheating the system.

In 2010/11 the authority caught 59 people, of whom 20 were prosecuted, while the following year 36 people received sanctions, with eight people going in front of a judge.

During 2012/13, 37 residents were tracked down, leading to 17 prosecutions. So far this year there have been 14 sanctions, of which nine cases resulted in prosecutions.

Sanctions included cautions, administrative penalties and court action.

Councillor Russell Holland, cabinet member for finance, said catching frausters was a top prority for the authority.

“The council takes benefit fraud very seriously and if there is anyone who is claiming benefits when they know they should not be I would urge them to come forward rather than wait to be found out,” said Coun Holland, who represents the St Margaret and South Marston wards.

“However, I would like to be absolutely clear that the overwhelming majority of people who claim benefits are in genuine need and I am proud of the help that the council provides.”

The leader of the Labour group, Councillor Jim Grant, said it was important to crack down on fraudsters to make sure the money could be spent on those who really needed it.

“I wholeheartedly support all actions being taken by Swindon Council to prosecute people abusing the benefits system,” said Coun Grant.

“It is wholly unacceptable for others to shirk their responsibilities. I think residents will share this view.

“There is, however, still an awful lot to do to get more fraudulent benefit claimers to pay back the money they owe and I would like to thank the council’s benefits team in their continued work to claw back money owed by fraudulent benefit claimers.”

The council reviews allegations made via a fraud hotline and cases that are highlighted by data matching with records held by many different local and central government departments.

Officers interview witnesses and people suspected of committing benefit fraud.

If the matter is a first offence and a small value, and the person admits they should have advised the council of a change in their circumstances, the offender will probably be issued with a caution or an administrative penalty.

Cases put forward for prosecution are passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:28am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

It's all very well 'ordering' these criminals to pay back their illegally gained benefit money (ie, OUR money), but let's see how much money SBC actually manage to get back.

My guess would be about 20% of what's owed... and even then it'll be at a laughable tiny monthly repayment rate.
It's all very well 'ordering' these criminals to pay back their illegally gained benefit money (ie, OUR money), but let's see how much money SBC actually manage to get back. My guess would be about 20% of what's owed... and even then it'll be at a laughable tiny monthly repayment rate. Ringer

8:26am Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Ringer wrote:
It's all very well 'ordering' these criminals to pay back their illegally gained benefit money (ie, OUR money), but let's see how much money SBC actually manage to get back.

My guess would be about 20% of what's owed... and even then it'll be at a laughable tiny monthly repayment rate.
Absolutely correct Ringer, that's the tip of the iceberg and the courts only make them pay about £4 a week which probably costs more in admin to collect than the debt it worth.

Maybe if they did more to prevent fraud and were more efficient processing claims they wouldn't have so many fraudulent ones after the event. The housing department have given up reporting suspected fraud cases to the benefit team because they never do anything about it!
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: It's all very well 'ordering' these criminals to pay back their illegally gained benefit money (ie, OUR money), but let's see how much money SBC actually manage to get back. My guess would be about 20% of what's owed... and even then it'll be at a laughable tiny monthly repayment rate.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct Ringer, that's the tip of the iceberg and the courts only make them pay about £4 a week which probably costs more in admin to collect than the debt it worth. Maybe if they did more to prevent fraud and were more efficient processing claims they wouldn't have so many fraudulent ones after the event. The housing department have given up reporting suspected fraud cases to the benefit team because they never do anything about it! house on the hill

9:33am Thu 12 Dec 13

LordCharles says...

A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.
A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years. LordCharles

9:38am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

LordCharles wrote:
A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.
You're no doubt entirely correct. The problem is that we're demanded to consider these people as 'vulnerable' and are only ever told how much more they should be entitled to.

To even dare mention the (entirely known) amount of benefit fraud that goes on inevitably results in you being labelled 'nasty' and simply dismissed as a 'Daily Mail reader' - as if that somehow nullifies the original allegation.
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.[/p][/quote]You're no doubt entirely correct. The problem is that we're demanded to consider these people as 'vulnerable' and are only ever told how much more they should be entitled to. To even dare mention the (entirely known) amount of benefit fraud that goes on inevitably results in you being labelled 'nasty' and simply dismissed as a 'Daily Mail reader' - as if that somehow nullifies the original allegation. Ringer

10:13am Thu 12 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?
I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks? Hmmmf

10:25am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Hmmmf wrote:
I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?
Hardly, they've got every public sector 'agency' running around after them to ensure their life here is as comfortable as possible, thanks to that spectacularly poor 'judgement'.

People on another thread are getting inordinately worked up about our two local MPs costing us £14k more per year while at the same time Field is not only allowing an illegal immigrant to waltz off with £25k of our money but also ensuring she now has legal residency status. Sheer insanity.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?[/p][/quote]Hardly, they've got every public sector 'agency' running around after them to ensure their life here is as comfortable as possible, thanks to that spectacularly poor 'judgement'. People on another thread are getting inordinately worked up about our two local MPs costing us £14k more per year while at the same time Field is not only allowing an illegal immigrant to waltz off with £25k of our money but also ensuring she now has legal residency status. Sheer insanity. Ringer

12:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Hmmmf wrote:
I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?
He is probably just doing the same again just somewhere else because the system is so flawed! Why we he not just put on a plane with a one way ticket!
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?[/p][/quote]He is probably just doing the same again just somewhere else because the system is so flawed! Why we he not just put on a plane with a one way ticket! house on the hill

12:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Ringer wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?
Hardly, they've got every public sector 'agency' running around after them to ensure their life here is as comfortable as possible, thanks to that spectacularly poor 'judgement'.

People on another thread are getting inordinately worked up about our two local MPs costing us £14k more per year while at the same time Field is not only allowing an illegal immigrant to waltz off with £25k of our money but also ensuring she now has legal residency status. Sheer insanity.
Absolutely and when the think the boss of Housing, the boss of benefits and the judge all get paid more that the MP's is it any wonder people wonder just what the heck is going on in this country!
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: I wonder if that illegal immigrant from Ghana who stole £25k in benefits and walked free from Judge Douglas Field's courtroom last month is on the council's list of benefit crooks?[/p][/quote]Hardly, they've got every public sector 'agency' running around after them to ensure their life here is as comfortable as possible, thanks to that spectacularly poor 'judgement'. People on another thread are getting inordinately worked up about our two local MPs costing us £14k more per year while at the same time Field is not only allowing an illegal immigrant to waltz off with £25k of our money but also ensuring she now has legal residency status. Sheer insanity.[/p][/quote]Absolutely and when the think the boss of Housing, the boss of benefits and the judge all get paid more that the MP's is it any wonder people wonder just what the heck is going on in this country! house on the hill

1:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Interesting statistic I heard the other day, that they estimate there is about £16billion in benefits that could be legitimately claimed if people knew what they were actually entitled to and claimed it! Makes the £4billion in fraud seem small in comparison to what the welfare bill could be!
Interesting statistic I heard the other day, that they estimate there is about £16billion in benefits that could be legitimately claimed if people knew what they were actually entitled to and claimed it! Makes the £4billion in fraud seem small in comparison to what the welfare bill could be! house on the hill

1:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

house on the hill wrote:
Interesting statistic I heard the other day, that they estimate there is about £16billion in benefits that could be legitimately claimed if people knew what they were actually entitled to and claimed it! Makes the £4billion in fraud seem small in comparison to what the welfare bill could be!
£4 Billion? And the rest.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Interesting statistic I heard the other day, that they estimate there is about £16billion in benefits that could be legitimately claimed if people knew what they were actually entitled to and claimed it! Makes the £4billion in fraud seem small in comparison to what the welfare bill could be![/p][/quote]£4 Billion? And the rest. Ringer

1:17pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

The latest DWP figures from May 2013 show of all benefits paid by both central and local government 0.7% are paid out to fraudulent claims. While an extra 0.9% of all benefits are saved due to underpayment caused by claimant and official error. I am not for one moment suggesting that claiming benefit fraudulently is right, but I find it strange that our press never mention that more money is saved because of error than is ever claimed fraudulently.
The latest DWP figures from May 2013 show of all benefits paid by both central and local government 0.7% are paid out to fraudulent claims. While an extra 0.9% of all benefits are saved due to underpayment caused by claimant and official error. I am not for one moment suggesting that claiming benefit fraudulently is right, but I find it strange that our press never mention that more money is saved because of error than is ever claimed fraudulently. Spurs Fan

1:26pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Lord Charles and Ringer, you are making up things for the sake of political argument. How can you say things like a "million pounds is only 10% of the detected fraud" and then have someone say you are "absolutely correct" You are allowing your bias to the fore and not dealing in the facts. As I said the other day on an Adver post these threads are the home of right wing bigots. How about some reasoned, factual, empirical argument for a change!
Lord Charles and Ringer, you are making up things for the sake of political argument. How can you say things like a "million pounds is only 10% of the detected fraud" and then have someone say you are "absolutely correct" You are allowing your bias to the fore and not dealing in the facts. As I said the other day on an Adver post these threads are the home of right wing bigots. How about some reasoned, factual, empirical argument for a change! Spurs Fan

3:21pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Lord Charles and Ringer, you are making up things for the sake of political argument. How can you say things like a "million pounds is only 10% of the detected fraud" and then have someone say you are "absolutely correct" You are allowing your bias to the fore and not dealing in the facts. As I said the other day on an Adver post these threads are the home of right wing bigots. How about some reasoned, factual, empirical argument for a change!
Because the government has NO idea how widespread benefit fraud really is, that's why. The officially calculated figure is nowhere near the reality of the situation.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Lord Charles and Ringer, you are making up things for the sake of political argument. How can you say things like a "million pounds is only 10% of the detected fraud" and then have someone say you are "absolutely correct" You are allowing your bias to the fore and not dealing in the facts. As I said the other day on an Adver post these threads are the home of right wing bigots. How about some reasoned, factual, empirical argument for a change![/p][/quote]Because the government has NO idea how widespread benefit fraud really is, that's why. The officially calculated figure is nowhere near the reality of the situation. Ringer

3:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer how do you know this??? You have no idea how widespread fraud is either. We can only go by the official data. Using your logic I could say that benefit fraud is nearly non existent. Stick to the facts and don't use made up stuff to further your right wing agenda.
Ringer how do you know this??? You have no idea how widespread fraud is either. We can only go by the official data. Using your logic I could say that benefit fraud is nearly non existent. Stick to the facts and don't use made up stuff to further your right wing agenda. Spurs Fan

3:51pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Russell Holland says...

Any debate to do with benefits is very emotive. Benefits fraud is a problem. Tax evasion is a problem. The complexity of the benefits system is also a problem.

It must be kept in mind that many people on benefits work but are on low incomes and many more would like to be able to work but can't because of health issues, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find a job.
Any debate to do with benefits is very emotive. Benefits fraud is a problem. Tax evasion is a problem. The complexity of the benefits system is also a problem. It must be kept in mind that many people on benefits work but are on low incomes and many more would like to be able to work but can't because of health issues, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find a job. Russell Holland

4:02pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are!
Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are! Spurs Fan

4:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

nigelej says...

£55 billion now thats a figure worth getting excited about that's the figure that as not been collected and chased by the tax man and the government . Now why is that any ideas might it be because its the rich that are getting richer and no one wants to upset them or take them on any thoughts
£55 billion now thats a figure worth getting excited about that's the figure that as not been collected and chased by the tax man and the government . Now why is that any ideas might it be because its the rich that are getting richer and no one wants to upset them or take them on any thoughts nigelej

4:29pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are!
Here's a not made up fact for you. Every minute of every day, 365 days of the year, this government writes off nearly £700 in benefits payments that were erroneously paid out.

I can't find any evidence for your other statement: " more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud" - could you point me in the right direction to some please?

Interestingly, using the most recent figures I can find from 2010 the cost of fraud including benefits paid from DWP and HMRC was actually 5.2 billion. Or £700 a second.

Putting it in some kind of perspective the DWP pays out around 140 billion a year, HMRC accounts for about 50 million totalling 190 billion in benefits paid each year. For reference the HMRC actually takes about 580 billion a year from taxes. This suggests 32% of the tax we pay goes directly to benefit payees (both working and non-working), although this doesn't take into account the cost of administering such a benefits system.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are![/p][/quote]Here's a not made up fact for you. Every minute of every day, 365 days of the year, this government writes off nearly £700 in benefits payments that were erroneously paid out. I can't find any evidence for your other statement: " more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud" - could you point me in the right direction to some please? Interestingly, using the most recent figures I can find from 2010 the cost of fraud including benefits paid from DWP and HMRC was actually 5.2 billion. Or £700 a second. Putting it in some kind of perspective the DWP pays out around 140 billion a year, HMRC accounts for about 50 million totalling 190 billion in benefits paid each year. For reference the HMRC actually takes about 580 billion a year from taxes. This suggests 32% of the tax we pay goes directly to benefit payees (both working and non-working), although this doesn't take into account the cost of administering such a benefits system. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

4:32pm Thu 12 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

LordCharles wrote:
A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.
And have you reported them?

If not then you are part of the problem.
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.[/p][/quote]And have you reported them? If not then you are part of the problem. LordAshOfTheBrake

4:47pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are!
Firstly saving money by error is disgraceful and insulting. I bet you would be the first to complain if someone had made an error and not paid you what you were owed. Secondly, how much does it cost to put the errors right both in admin costs and benefit payments. Having spent many years working with benefit claimants and advisors I would say it was pretty high. No one has mentioned that anywhere.

I am sorry if i dont share your ideology that the state should provide no matter what. For me, if you are fit and able then you should provide for your own family and benefits should only be there as a safety net when circumstances go against you, they should never be a lifestyle choice. Having children is not a right its a priviledge and bringing a child into the world when you have no means of of supporting it is the height or irresponsibility to the child and those you expect to pay for you .

I don't agree there is a housing "crisis", I haven't seen hundreds of people without a home roaming the streets every night and why should people expect to have a home if they cant afford it? Where is the incentive to work harder and save and prioritise your income when you can have it on a plate form the taxpayer? The world has changed and we have to change with it. House prices have risen and deposits are higher so we have to make sacrifices if we want a home. We cant have it all so its about choice.

We already only exist because the rich subsidise the poor, the responsible subsidise the irresponsible and the hard workers subsidise the lazy ones. The welfare state makes too many people soft and lazy and "play the game" because they can. We all need to grow a pair and take more responsibility for our own lives. if you cant find a job then do what millions of others do and move somewhere where there is a job. I have had a dozen different jobs in 7 different towns and cities over my lifetime because that's what you have to do sometimes. Benefits are for those in real need and not those in want but i dont expect the left wingers on here to understand the concept, they are just happy to bankrupt the country with the welfare state and pensions ever rising because too many people "expect" to be looked after rather than looking after themselves as they should.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Russell, you are correct in saying benefits discussion can be emotive. However, if people stuck to the known facts and made reasoned argument you can remove some of that emotion. Many people who take the time to post on this site just make up stuff to forward their own world view. As I said earlier more money is saved in the benefits system due to error than is ever paid out in fraud. This is not a story because our political elite in conjunction with the right wing press don't wish it to be. Let's have some reasoned debate by all means but people who "make up stuff" should be shown up for the frauds they are![/p][/quote]Firstly saving money by error is disgraceful and insulting. I bet you would be the first to complain if someone had made an error and not paid you what you were owed. Secondly, how much does it cost to put the errors right both in admin costs and benefit payments. Having spent many years working with benefit claimants and advisors I would say it was pretty high. No one has mentioned that anywhere. I am sorry if i dont share your ideology that the state should provide no matter what. For me, if you are fit and able then you should provide for your own family and benefits should only be there as a safety net when circumstances go against you, they should never be a lifestyle choice. Having children is not a right its a priviledge and bringing a child into the world when you have no means of of supporting it is the height or irresponsibility to the child and those you expect to pay for you . I don't agree there is a housing "crisis", I haven't seen hundreds of people without a home roaming the streets every night and why should people expect to have a home if they cant afford it? Where is the incentive to work harder and save and prioritise your income when you can have it on a plate form the taxpayer? The world has changed and we have to change with it. House prices have risen and deposits are higher so we have to make sacrifices if we want a home. We cant have it all so its about choice. We already only exist because the rich subsidise the poor, the responsible subsidise the irresponsible and the hard workers subsidise the lazy ones. The welfare state makes too many people soft and lazy and "play the game" because they can. We all need to grow a pair and take more responsibility for our own lives. if you cant find a job then do what millions of others do and move somewhere where there is a job. I have had a dozen different jobs in 7 different towns and cities over my lifetime because that's what you have to do sometimes. Benefits are for those in real need and not those in want but i dont expect the left wingers on here to understand the concept, they are just happy to bankrupt the country with the welfare state and pensions ever rising because too many people "expect" to be looked after rather than looking after themselves as they should. house on the hill

6:04pm Thu 12 Dec 13

knittynora says...

LordCharles wrote:
A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.
So if you really do know that all these people are making fraudulent claims, why aren't you reporting it to the relevant authorities like the good citizen you are?
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: A million pounds of fraud detected is about ten per cent of the actual fraud. Women are claiming benefits who have income from "absent" boyfriends. I know at least seven like that. Working for cash and not declaring a change in circumstances. I know a few like that. People living in three bedroomed houses after their partner has left them and not declaring it. I suspect the real figure is £10 million in three years.[/p][/quote]So if you really do know that all these people are making fraudulent claims, why aren't you reporting it to the relevant authorities like the good citizen you are? knittynora

7:01pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer how do you know this??? You have no idea how widespread fraud is either. We can only go by the official data. Using your logic I could say that benefit fraud is nearly non existent. Stick to the facts and don't use made up stuff to further your right wing agenda.
It's impossible for anyone to know how widespread it is, mainly because the whole point of it is that those committing it keep quiet about it and aren't usually caught.

If you're trying to pretend it's not massively pervasive then you're clearly just another socialist dreamer who thinks everyone on benefits is hard done by and salt of the earth types.

Try living in the real world for a change.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer how do you know this??? You have no idea how widespread fraud is either. We can only go by the official data. Using your logic I could say that benefit fraud is nearly non existent. Stick to the facts and don't use made up stuff to further your right wing agenda.[/p][/quote]It's impossible for anyone to know how widespread it is, mainly because the whole point of it is that those committing it keep quiet about it and aren't usually caught. If you're trying to pretend it's not massively pervasive then you're clearly just another socialist dreamer who thinks everyone on benefits is hard done by and salt of the earth types. Try living in the real world for a change. Ringer

7:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

nigelej wrote:
£55 billion now thats a figure worth getting excited about that's the figure that as not been collected and chased by the tax man and the government . Now why is that any ideas might it be because its the rich that are getting richer and no one wants to upset them or take them on any thoughts
You do realise that has nothing to do with people who commit benefit fraud?

Equally, it's a meaningless figure - unless, of course, you spend your time grassing up all those tax evaders... to use the bizarre logic of the Marxists on here as they try to defend the wholesale benefit fraud they know full well goes on.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: £55 billion now thats a figure worth getting excited about that's the figure that as not been collected and chased by the tax man and the government . Now why is that any ideas might it be because its the rich that are getting richer and no one wants to upset them or take them on any thoughts[/p][/quote]You do realise that has nothing to do with people who commit benefit fraud? Equally, it's a meaningless figure - unless, of course, you spend your time grassing up all those tax evaders... to use the bizarre logic of the Marxists on here as they try to defend the wholesale benefit fraud they know full well goes on. Ringer

7:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

faatmaan says...

people with overseas pensions/incomes still getting housing benefit, even ex employees of the borough, if they can't get their own house in order, how can they deal with he rest.
people with overseas pensions/incomes still getting housing benefit, even ex employees of the borough, if they can't get their own house in order, how can they deal with he rest. faatmaan

8:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

faatmaan wrote:
people with overseas pensions/incomes still getting housing benefit, even ex employees of the borough, if they can't get their own house in order, how can they deal with he rest.
And current employees of housing earning more than the average salary still being allowed to live in council houses when they can clearly afford to rent or buy their own, what sort of example is that?

Its no wonder there are so many errors in benefits in Swindon, most of the admin is done in an industrial unit in Dorset that neither claimants or housing staff are allowed to contact or talk to. Add to that the call centre is in Coventry where most probably dont even know where Swindon is and have only a very limited knowledge of or access to benefit claims and it is a recipe for disaster. But at Least Capita are making lots of money out of us and leaving the council to clear up the mess they make.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: people with overseas pensions/incomes still getting housing benefit, even ex employees of the borough, if they can't get their own house in order, how can they deal with he rest.[/p][/quote]And current employees of housing earning more than the average salary still being allowed to live in council houses when they can clearly afford to rent or buy their own, what sort of example is that? Its no wonder there are so many errors in benefits in Swindon, most of the admin is done in an industrial unit in Dorset that neither claimants or housing staff are allowed to contact or talk to. Add to that the call centre is in Coventry where most probably dont even know where Swindon is and have only a very limited knowledge of or access to benefit claims and it is a recipe for disaster. But at Least Capita are making lots of money out of us and leaving the council to clear up the mess they make. house on the hill

10:40pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer, I for one minute do not believe everyone on benefits is hard done by. What I am saying is deal with the facts or at least the latest government statistics. I am not pretending to do anything, unlike yourself who makes up figures and then criticises others for being factual. As for living in the real world perhaps you should practice what you preach and stick to the DWP data.

Grumpy Old Man, the latest DWP figure which support my argument can be found here https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/203097
/nsfr-final-090513.p
df.

House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against. For instance Over 40% of work capability assessments declaring the disabled fit carried out by ATOS on behalf of HM Government are overturned when reviewed or appealed. This government has made it acceptable in the public opinion to class those that cannot work as feckless or shirkers. We see posters saying the Conservative Party is for hard working people. The role of any party of government is to rule on behalf of all its populace, That includes those that can and do work hard, it includes those that are sick or disabled and those that have just lost their jobs because of the world wide downturn.

Ringer one final thought do you personally know that anyone who has posted on this thread is a Marxist? I am definitely a democratic socialist of the old school, but never a Marxist, or Leninist or Trotskyist. Can I ask if you are a Nazi?
Ringer, I for one minute do not believe everyone on benefits is hard done by. What I am saying is deal with the facts or at least the latest government statistics. I am not pretending to do anything, unlike yourself who makes up figures and then criticises others for being factual. As for living in the real world perhaps you should practice what you preach and stick to the DWP data. Grumpy Old Man, the latest DWP figure which support my argument can be found here https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/203097 /nsfr-final-090513.p df. House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against. For instance Over 40% of work capability assessments declaring the disabled fit carried out by ATOS on behalf of HM Government are overturned when reviewed or appealed. This government has made it acceptable in the public opinion to class those that cannot work as feckless or shirkers. We see posters saying the Conservative Party is for hard working people. The role of any party of government is to rule on behalf of all its populace, That includes those that can and do work hard, it includes those that are sick or disabled and those that have just lost their jobs because of the world wide downturn. Ringer one final thought do you personally know that anyone who has posted on this thread is a Marxist? I am definitely a democratic socialist of the old school, but never a Marxist, or Leninist or Trotskyist. Can I ask if you are a Nazi? Spurs Fan

8:01am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@Spurs Fan: you may ask, yes. No, I'm not, but it comes as no surprise that a 'democratic socialist of the old school' would ask such a childish question.

Socialist, Communist, Marxist... it's all the same, none of it works in real life because your entire ideology is based around perverting innate human nature - which you have never done and will never do.


However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against.


You must be joking. Have you seen the size of the UK's welfare budget?!
@Spurs Fan: you may ask, yes. No, I'm not, but it comes as no surprise that a 'democratic socialist of the old school' would ask such a childish question. Socialist, Communist, Marxist... it's all the same, none of it works in real life because your entire ideology is based around perverting innate human nature - which you have never done and will never do. [quote] However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against. [/quote] You must be joking. Have you seen the size of the UK's welfare budget?! Ringer

8:15am Fri 13 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer, Your argument is totally flawed there is no such thing as innate human nature. I defy you to find a rational explanation in for such a statement in any text book of any scientific discipline. I gave you a statistic that 4 out of 10 disabled people are being found fit for work and then when appealed to a tribunal this is being overturned. What would you call that if not discrimination? Your ideology as far as I can see is very right wing I believe you when you state that you are not Nazi, However, I asking such a question is not and could not be considered childish. I am sticking to facts and and trying to ascertain by empirical questioning your true political leanings. As I said I believe in socialism by democratic means, I ask once again what do you believe in politically?
Ringer, Your argument is totally flawed there is no such thing as innate human nature. I defy you to find a rational explanation in for such a statement in any text book of any scientific discipline. I gave you a statistic that 4 out of 10 disabled people are being found fit for work and then when appealed to a tribunal this is being overturned. What would you call that if not discrimination? Your ideology as far as I can see is very right wing I believe you when you state that you are not Nazi, However, I asking such a question is not and could not be considered childish. I am sticking to facts and and trying to ascertain by empirical questioning your true political leanings. As I said I believe in socialism by democratic means, I ask once again what do you believe in politically? Spurs Fan

10:00am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ringer says...


Ringer, Your argument is totally flawed there is no such thing as innate human nature.


Er, survival? Reproduction?


I gave you a statistic that 4 out of 10 disabled people are being found fit for work and then when appealed to a tribunal this is being overturned. What would you call that if not discrimination?


It's not 'discrimination'. It means that 60% of the original assessments were correct. I'd say that's a high success rate for the public sector. Mistakes will sometimes be made, especially when the frauds always use the old 'bad back' or 'I'm mental, me' tricks - ie, things that are almost impossible to disprove or prove.

You do know that Nazism actually means 'National Socialism'? There is very little in the Nazi ideology that I would subscribe to. I also do not consider myself 'right-wing', I am simply vehemently opposed to the abysmal ideology of the Left.
[quote] Ringer, Your argument is totally flawed there is no such thing as innate human nature. [/quote] Er, survival? Reproduction? [quote] I gave you a statistic that 4 out of 10 disabled people are being found fit for work and then when appealed to a tribunal this is being overturned. What would you call that if not discrimination? [/quote] It's not 'discrimination'. It means that 60% of the original assessments were correct. I'd say that's a high success rate for the public sector. Mistakes will sometimes be made, especially when the frauds always use the old 'bad back' or 'I'm mental, me' tricks - ie, things that are almost impossible to disprove or prove. You do know that Nazism actually means 'National Socialism'? There is very little in the Nazi ideology that I would subscribe to. I also do not consider myself 'right-wing', I am simply vehemently opposed to the abysmal ideology of the Left. Ringer

1:54pm Fri 13 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer, I for one minute do not believe everyone on benefits is hard done by. What I am saying is deal with the facts or at least the latest government statistics. I am not pretending to do anything, unlike yourself who makes up figures and then criticises others for being factual. As for living in the real world perhaps you should practice what you preach and stick to the DWP data.

Grumpy Old Man, the latest DWP figure which support my argument can be found here https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/203097

/nsfr-final-090513.p

df.

House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against. For instance Over 40% of work capability assessments declaring the disabled fit carried out by ATOS on behalf of HM Government are overturned when reviewed or appealed. This government has made it acceptable in the public opinion to class those that cannot work as feckless or shirkers. We see posters saying the Conservative Party is for hard working people. The role of any party of government is to rule on behalf of all its populace, That includes those that can and do work hard, it includes those that are sick or disabled and those that have just lost their jobs because of the world wide downturn.

Ringer one final thought do you personally know that anyone who has posted on this thread is a Marxist? I am definitely a democratic socialist of the old school, but never a Marxist, or Leninist or Trotskyist. Can I ask if you are a Nazi?
"""Spurs Fan says.
House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against."""

I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. One problem is that there seem to be many different definitions of "vulnerable" which doesn't help. Someone who has worked all their life and earned good money but instead of buying a house and a pension and planning for the future has just pi55ed it up against a wall and then when they retire expects a council house and benefits is not vulnerable, they have excercised their freedom of choice and now has to live with the consequences.

Why should someone on good money be allowed to stay in their council house when they clearly no longer "need" it? Why should we pay for boob jobs and gastric bands on the NHS from weak and insecure. Why should those who do take responsibility for themselves be forced to pay for those who don't? We can no longer afford the current grossly unfair welfare system and nor should be. the current "there there" approach is slowly but surely bankrupting the country, we need to man up before we all go down the toilet.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer, I for one minute do not believe everyone on benefits is hard done by. What I am saying is deal with the facts or at least the latest government statistics. I am not pretending to do anything, unlike yourself who makes up figures and then criticises others for being factual. As for living in the real world perhaps you should practice what you preach and stick to the DWP data. Grumpy Old Man, the latest DWP figure which support my argument can be found here https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/203097 /nsfr-final-090513.p df. House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against. For instance Over 40% of work capability assessments declaring the disabled fit carried out by ATOS on behalf of HM Government are overturned when reviewed or appealed. This government has made it acceptable in the public opinion to class those that cannot work as feckless or shirkers. We see posters saying the Conservative Party is for hard working people. The role of any party of government is to rule on behalf of all its populace, That includes those that can and do work hard, it includes those that are sick or disabled and those that have just lost their jobs because of the world wide downturn. Ringer one final thought do you personally know that anyone who has posted on this thread is a Marxist? I am definitely a democratic socialist of the old school, but never a Marxist, or Leninist or Trotskyist. Can I ask if you are a Nazi?[/p][/quote]"""Spurs Fan says. House on the Hill my political ideology is that if you are able you should be able to support yourself and your family. However, under the current system those that clearly cannot support themselves are being discriminated against.""" I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. One problem is that there seem to be many different definitions of "vulnerable" which doesn't help. Someone who has worked all their life and earned good money but instead of buying a house and a pension and planning for the future has just pi55ed it up against a wall and then when they retire expects a council house and benefits is not vulnerable, they have excercised their freedom of choice and now has to live with the consequences. Why should someone on good money be allowed to stay in their council house when they clearly no longer "need" it? Why should we pay for boob jobs and gastric bands on the NHS from weak and insecure. Why should those who do take responsibility for themselves be forced to pay for those who don't? We can no longer afford the current grossly unfair welfare system and nor should be. the current "there there" approach is slowly but surely bankrupting the country, we need to man up before we all go down the toilet. house on the hill

3:05pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer, reproduction and survival are not human nature they are common to all life forms. Human nature has no scientific basis in any way shape or form. So I ask again how can socialism be a perversion, is it just a perversion because it does not fit in with your world view?

If you think that 4 out of 10 wrong work capability assessments performed by a private company on behalf of the state is a high success rate I think we may need to agree to disagree. As I said genuinely chronically sick and disabled people as well as the learning disabled are being are being discriminated against in the drive to find the 0.6% of fraud according to government statistics.. You may not call that discrimination but I would argue that it is, and again we should agree to disagree. Don't lump people playing the system with bad backs or other dubious ailments in the same category as those that are really disabled or chronically ill.

Finally I notice from your final response that you said there is very little in Nazi Ideology that you would subscribe to. Can I ask what parts you would subscribe to?
Ringer, reproduction and survival are not human nature they are common to all life forms. Human nature has no scientific basis in any way shape or form. So I ask again how can socialism be a perversion, is it just a perversion because it does not fit in with your world view? If you think that 4 out of 10 wrong work capability assessments performed by a private company on behalf of the state is a high success rate I think we may need to agree to disagree. As I said genuinely chronically sick and disabled people as well as the learning disabled are being are being discriminated against in the drive to find the 0.6% of fraud according to government statistics.. You may not call that discrimination but I would argue that it is, and again we should agree to disagree. Don't lump people playing the system with bad backs or other dubious ailments in the same category as those that are really disabled or chronically ill. Finally I notice from your final response that you said there is very little in Nazi Ideology that you would subscribe to. Can I ask what parts you would subscribe to? Spurs Fan

3:37pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view.
House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view. Spurs Fan

3:47pm Fri 13 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view.
From memory, the nationality of the "Ghanian immigrant" is relevant only because he was actually an illegal immigrant, yet somehow managed to claim benefits illegally and live in this country for some time before being detected, highlighting just how broken the system is.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view.[/p][/quote]From memory, the nationality of the "Ghanian immigrant" is relevant only because he was actually an illegal immigrant, yet somehow managed to claim benefits illegally and live in this country for some time before being detected, highlighting just how broken the system is. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

3:56pm Fri 13 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view.
The other thing to consider here is that 6 in 10, or 60% of people that were taken off disability because it was shown they were actually capable of work, did not have their complaints upheld. This suggests there has been widespread misuse of the term "disability", and that those that are genuinely disabled, vulnerable, ill should be welcoming government efforts to crack down on fraud such as this as it means there is more money available for those that truly need it.

The tax payer is not a bottomless wallet and nor should it be.

You said: "However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them." - what is the nature of this evidence, what do you think these people are missing out on, and what would you suggest as an alternative? And how would you pay for this?
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: House on the Hill, I notice that you said "I think the difference then is the interpretation of "able to support yourself" I have no issue with helping the truly disabled and I dont think anyone else on here does. " I welcome that statement. However, not everyone that posts on here is that unambiguous, Russel Holland said that he is proud of the way that there is help for the disabled and I genuinely welcome that. Some people that have taken the time to post on this thread have spoken about a Ghanaian who was found guilty of fraud. What does the guy's nationality or race have to do with the debate? One poster has said that he is not totally opposed to Nazi ideology, I wonder what parts he does agree with? I like to talk politics with people that are rational and can hold a reasoned debate without resulting to calling people "childish" because they have a different opinion. I think it is a pity that many people who post on these types of site do not have the intellectual capacity to hold an argument/debate without making vague generaisations and name calling because they do not agree with others political opinion. Finally I have very great sympathy when you say that we as in the government should not support those that are genuinely able to support themselves. However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them. I would contend in the rush to create a smaller government/bigger society the genuinely ill, disabled, vulnerable are being discriminated against. Others may disagree with that but please provide evidence for your point of view.[/p][/quote]The other thing to consider here is that 6 in 10, or 60% of people that were taken off disability because it was shown they were actually capable of work, did not have their complaints upheld. This suggests there has been widespread misuse of the term "disability", and that those that are genuinely disabled, vulnerable, ill should be welcoming government efforts to crack down on fraud such as this as it means there is more money available for those that truly need it. The tax payer is not a bottomless wallet and nor should it be. You said: "However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people who are being targeted in the current wave of austerity. Very vulnerable people are missing out because they have no one who is able to fight their corner for them." - what is the nature of this evidence, what do you think these people are missing out on, and what would you suggest as an alternative? And how would you pay for this? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

4:29pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy Old Man, to answer your last point first and without talking about individuals as that would not be appropriate. I have seen people of all ages reassessed/assessed for benefits and then told that they do not qualify for their benefits or they only qualify at lower rates.. When the decision is appealed or or the claimant has reapplied they have been rewarded their benefit at higher rates. It is as if the system is deliberately stopping the disabled person's benefit in the vain hope that they will not go for a reassessment or appeal, Obviously I cannot substantiate that last statement! Of course while all of this is going on the person is missing out on benefit that they should qualify for. I would suggest as an alternative that ATOS or whoever makes decisions on individuals cases talks to agencies that work with these individuals on a regular basis. All of this could be paid for from the cost of unnecessary and unwanted appeals and tribunals.This does not regularly happen and would account for the shocking fact that 4 out of 10 claims are overturned on appeal.

I would also like to say that your assertion that there would be more money for the genuinely ill if there were less claimants does not bear close inspection.. At no time has this government said we will seek out the fraudsters and increase rates for those that we feel are "genuinely disabled. Just like the government has not said we will make sure we target those that do not receive enough benefits due to error. After all as I have already proven more benefit is saved due to error than is ever paid out in fraudulent claims.
Grumpy Old Man, to answer your last point first and without talking about individuals as that would not be appropriate. I have seen people of all ages reassessed/assessed for benefits and then told that they do not qualify for their benefits or they only qualify at lower rates.. When the decision is appealed or or the claimant has reapplied they have been rewarded their benefit at higher rates. It is as if the system is deliberately stopping the disabled person's benefit in the vain hope that they will not go for a reassessment or appeal, Obviously I cannot substantiate that last statement! Of course while all of this is going on the person is missing out on benefit that they should qualify for. I would suggest as an alternative that ATOS or whoever makes decisions on individuals cases talks to agencies that work with these individuals on a regular basis. All of this could be paid for from the cost of unnecessary and unwanted appeals and tribunals.This does not regularly happen and would account for the shocking fact that 4 out of 10 claims are overturned on appeal. I would also like to say that your assertion that there would be more money for the genuinely ill if there were less claimants does not bear close inspection.. At no time has this government said we will seek out the fraudsters and increase rates for those that we feel are "genuinely disabled. Just like the government has not said we will make sure we target those that do not receive enough benefits due to error. After all as I have already proven more benefit is saved due to error than is ever paid out in fraudulent claims. Spurs Fan

4:50pm Fri 13 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Grumpy Old Man, to answer your last point first and without talking about individuals as that would not be appropriate. I have seen people of all ages reassessed/assessed for benefits and then told that they do not qualify for their benefits or they only qualify at lower rates.. When the decision is appealed or or the claimant has reapplied they have been rewarded their benefit at higher rates. It is as if the system is deliberately stopping the disabled person's benefit in the vain hope that they will not go for a reassessment or appeal, Obviously I cannot substantiate that last statement! Of course while all of this is going on the person is missing out on benefit that they should qualify for. I would suggest as an alternative that ATOS or whoever makes decisions on individuals cases talks to agencies that work with these individuals on a regular basis. All of this could be paid for from the cost of unnecessary and unwanted appeals and tribunals.This does not regularly happen and would account for the shocking fact that 4 out of 10 claims are overturned on appeal.

I would also like to say that your assertion that there would be more money for the genuinely ill if there were less claimants does not bear close inspection.. At no time has this government said we will seek out the fraudsters and increase rates for those that we feel are "genuinely disabled. Just like the government has not said we will make sure we target those that do not receive enough benefits due to error. After all as I have already proven more benefit is saved due to error than is ever paid out in fraudulent claims.
So no real evidence then, just your opinion. 6 in 10 appeals aren't overturned suggesting that for the majority the new system is working as intended.

If 4 in 10 are overturned clearly there are a large number of marginal cases. It would be interesting to understand why that is the case, and perhaps tweak the system to take account of that.

I phrased the last bit badly. I did not mean to insinuate that disabled people would get more money, just that more money would be available to continue paying their existing benefits. Currently we (as a nation) are still spending well beyond our means, so something has to give. A report out yesterday suggested the budget deficit is actually 185 billion pounds. If true that suggests our government is currently spending over £3500 more *per minute* than it is taking in tax. Basic economics tells us that can't continue.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old Man, to answer your last point first and without talking about individuals as that would not be appropriate. I have seen people of all ages reassessed/assessed for benefits and then told that they do not qualify for their benefits or they only qualify at lower rates.. When the decision is appealed or or the claimant has reapplied they have been rewarded their benefit at higher rates. It is as if the system is deliberately stopping the disabled person's benefit in the vain hope that they will not go for a reassessment or appeal, Obviously I cannot substantiate that last statement! Of course while all of this is going on the person is missing out on benefit that they should qualify for. I would suggest as an alternative that ATOS or whoever makes decisions on individuals cases talks to agencies that work with these individuals on a regular basis. All of this could be paid for from the cost of unnecessary and unwanted appeals and tribunals.This does not regularly happen and would account for the shocking fact that 4 out of 10 claims are overturned on appeal. I would also like to say that your assertion that there would be more money for the genuinely ill if there were less claimants does not bear close inspection.. At no time has this government said we will seek out the fraudsters and increase rates for those that we feel are "genuinely disabled. Just like the government has not said we will make sure we target those that do not receive enough benefits due to error. After all as I have already proven more benefit is saved due to error than is ever paid out in fraudulent claims.[/p][/quote]So no real evidence then, just your opinion. 6 in 10 appeals aren't overturned suggesting that for the majority the new system is working as intended. If 4 in 10 are overturned clearly there are a large number of marginal cases. It would be interesting to understand why that is the case, and perhaps tweak the system to take account of that. I phrased the last bit badly. I did not mean to insinuate that disabled people would get more money, just that more money would be available to continue paying their existing benefits. Currently we (as a nation) are still spending well beyond our means, so something has to give. A report out yesterday suggested the budget deficit is actually 185 billion pounds. If true that suggests our government is currently spending over £3500 more *per minute* than it is taking in tax. Basic economics tells us that can't continue. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

5:50pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy Old Man, as I said I cannot give you individual names etc, but I do have evidence that disabled people are getting removed from benefits and then on appeal they are getting them reinstated. Government statistics also bear this out as 4 out 10 appeals are successful so it is, I would argue, safe to assume that what I am seeing is being repeated up and down the country. I do not see how you can say that 4 in 10 cases is marginal, you would be right in saying a simple majority of cases are decided right first time but we are talking about some very vulnerable people here. I would argue the any system that leaves disabled people in this situation needs more than just a tweak.

I also see you are back tracking on your original statement that the disabled person should welcome the new system as it means there will be more for the most deserving. I think disabled people would welcome a system that is overwhelmingly right first time and would welcome a government that did not place it's self on the side of the hard working as most disabled people I know would love the opportunity to be in the Tory parlance a hard working member of society.

It does appear that we may have wandered a bit off topic here, but I firmly believe that this current government in it's bid to balance the nation's books has tried to make it acceptable to set workers against those that cannot work. The largest party in government should say it is in government for all of it's population. It should not be on the side of just hard working families, it should govern for the sick, the disabled etc. Benefit fraud is an emotive subject as many have already commented but the reality is 99.3% of all benefits is not paid out to fraudsters only 0.7% is. In a bid to combat fraud real people are unfairly being denied the help they so much need.
Grumpy Old Man, as I said I cannot give you individual names etc, but I do have evidence that disabled people are getting removed from benefits and then on appeal they are getting them reinstated. Government statistics also bear this out as 4 out 10 appeals are successful so it is, I would argue, safe to assume that what I am seeing is being repeated up and down the country. I do not see how you can say that 4 in 10 cases is marginal, you would be right in saying a simple majority of cases are decided right first time but we are talking about some very vulnerable people here. I would argue the any system that leaves disabled people in this situation needs more than just a tweak. I also see you are back tracking on your original statement that the disabled person should welcome the new system as it means there will be more for the most deserving. I think disabled people would welcome a system that is overwhelmingly right first time and would welcome a government that did not place it's self on the side of the hard working as most disabled people I know would love the opportunity to be in the Tory parlance a hard working member of society. It does appear that we may have wandered a bit off topic here, but I firmly believe that this current government in it's bid to balance the nation's books has tried to make it acceptable to set workers against those that cannot work. The largest party in government should say it is in government for all of it's population. It should not be on the side of just hard working families, it should govern for the sick, the disabled etc. Benefit fraud is an emotive subject as many have already commented but the reality is 99.3% of all benefits is not paid out to fraudsters only 0.7% is. In a bid to combat fraud real people are unfairly being denied the help they so much need. Spurs Fan

10:25am Sat 14 Dec 13

Ringer says...


However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people


This explains a lot.

Facetious asking people if they're 'Nazis' IS childish. If you'd rather not be labelled 'childish', try not being childish.
[quote] However, I see evidence everyday in my role as a director of a day resource for people with LD and as chair of a special school of disabled people [/quote] This explains a lot. Facetious asking people if they're 'Nazis' IS childish. If you'd rather not be labelled 'childish', try not being childish. Ringer

9:10am Sun 15 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer how do my various roles working with extremely disabled people explain a lot? you say it does but do not say how. I would argue that the people I see everyday give me a far greater insight into how government policy is affecting vulnerable people than perhaps you have. Do you have a position that allows you that insight? I have already asked you why you subscribe to some Nazi ideology, and again I ask you what part that might be? I also see from another thread that once you start to lose an argument/debate you result to name calling. Like you have called me a Marxist. Do you really understand these terms? How anyone can label Russell Holland a Communist I do not know. You could have always asked if he was communist, but seeing as he is portfolio holder for finance in a Conservative administration I expect that would have been pointless. So Mr Ringer please try not to call people names while trying to make your political point. I will not call you names as I stopped name calling when I was a child.
Ringer how do my various roles working with extremely disabled people explain a lot? you say it does but do not say how. I would argue that the people I see everyday give me a far greater insight into how government policy is affecting vulnerable people than perhaps you have. Do you have a position that allows you that insight? I have already asked you why you subscribe to some Nazi ideology, and again I ask you what part that might be? I also see from another thread that once you start to lose an argument/debate you result to name calling. Like you have called me a Marxist. Do you really understand these terms? How anyone can label Russell Holland a Communist I do not know. You could have always asked if he was communist, but seeing as he is portfolio holder for finance in a Conservative administration I expect that would have been pointless. So Mr Ringer please try not to call people names while trying to make your political point. I will not call you names as I stopped name calling when I was a child. Spurs Fan

9:46am Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Grumpy Old Man, as I said I cannot give you individual names etc, but I do have evidence that disabled people are getting removed from benefits and then on appeal they are getting them reinstated. Government statistics also bear this out as 4 out 10 appeals are successful so it is, I would argue, safe to assume that what I am seeing is being repeated up and down the country. I do not see how you can say that 4 in 10 cases is marginal, you would be right in saying a simple majority of cases are decided right first time but we are talking about some very vulnerable people here. I would argue the any system that leaves disabled people in this situation needs more than just a tweak.

I also see you are back tracking on your original statement that the disabled person should welcome the new system as it means there will be more for the most deserving. I think disabled people would welcome a system that is overwhelmingly right first time and would welcome a government that did not place it's self on the side of the hard working as most disabled people I know would love the opportunity to be in the Tory parlance a hard working member of society.

It does appear that we may have wandered a bit off topic here, but I firmly believe that this current government in it's bid to balance the nation's books has tried to make it acceptable to set workers against those that cannot work. The largest party in government should say it is in government for all of it's population. It should not be on the side of just hard working families, it should govern for the sick, the disabled etc. Benefit fraud is an emotive subject as many have already commented but the reality is 99.3% of all benefits is not paid out to fraudsters only 0.7% is. In a bid to combat fraud real people are unfairly being denied the help they so much need.
By "marginal" I mean - if there is a line drawn, one side you get benefits and one side you don't, some people must sit very close to that line.

I haven't "backtracked" on anything, I just worded my point badly as already stated.

Here's another way of looking at it. Being reassessed and no longer eligible for benefits is not classed as fraud. However 60% of those reassessed and then reassessed again on appeal were found to be claiming benefits they should not have been entitled to.

Do you think we should be giving free (to them) money at the tax payers expense to anyone who has the slightest sniff of "disability". How would you suggest we pay for this?

Or, if you think that the government has it right and people should be reassessed, how would you suggest to make it fair (for both those giving and those receiving?
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old Man, as I said I cannot give you individual names etc, but I do have evidence that disabled people are getting removed from benefits and then on appeal they are getting them reinstated. Government statistics also bear this out as 4 out 10 appeals are successful so it is, I would argue, safe to assume that what I am seeing is being repeated up and down the country. I do not see how you can say that 4 in 10 cases is marginal, you would be right in saying a simple majority of cases are decided right first time but we are talking about some very vulnerable people here. I would argue the any system that leaves disabled people in this situation needs more than just a tweak. I also see you are back tracking on your original statement that the disabled person should welcome the new system as it means there will be more for the most deserving. I think disabled people would welcome a system that is overwhelmingly right first time and would welcome a government that did not place it's self on the side of the hard working as most disabled people I know would love the opportunity to be in the Tory parlance a hard working member of society. It does appear that we may have wandered a bit off topic here, but I firmly believe that this current government in it's bid to balance the nation's books has tried to make it acceptable to set workers against those that cannot work. The largest party in government should say it is in government for all of it's population. It should not be on the side of just hard working families, it should govern for the sick, the disabled etc. Benefit fraud is an emotive subject as many have already commented but the reality is 99.3% of all benefits is not paid out to fraudsters only 0.7% is. In a bid to combat fraud real people are unfairly being denied the help they so much need.[/p][/quote]By "marginal" I mean - if there is a line drawn, one side you get benefits and one side you don't, some people must sit very close to that line. I haven't "backtracked" on anything, I just worded my point badly as already stated. Here's another way of looking at it. Being reassessed and no longer eligible for benefits is not classed as fraud. However 60% of those reassessed and then reassessed again on appeal were found to be claiming benefits they should not have been entitled to. Do you think we should be giving free (to them) money at the tax payers expense to anyone who has the slightest sniff of "disability". How would you suggest we pay for this? Or, if you think that the government has it right and people should be reassessed, how would you suggest to make it fair (for both those giving and those receiving? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:26am Mon 16 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy I don't think that you are entirely correct when saying that "However 60% of those reassessed and then reassessed again on appeal were found to be claiming benefits they should not have been entitled to." It is unlikely that the claimant would be in receipt of benefit while waiting to be reassessed. In fact they would not be getting anything and then the the appeal/tribunal would agree with that decision in fact reiterating the original decision not to pay benefit. So in my opinion no fraud has taken place in this scenario,

I do not for one minute suggest that tax payers should fund in your parlance someone who has the "slightest sniff of disability" ( I would not use language like that myself as disabled people should be due our respect) However, I think I understand what you are trying to say. As I said before most if not all disabled/chronically ill people have regular contact with, Consultants, GPs, Care workers, Social Workers etc. Liasing with these professionals would allow more decisions to be made right first time. It is very apparent from my own experience that often this does not always happen.

Any working practice that allows better decision making would I think pay for its self as less appeals would need to take place. To answer your final point I think many disabled people should be reassessed on a routine basis. However, there are cases such as brain injury, chronic progressive diseases such as RA, Lupus etc and lifelong learning disabilities such as profound autism that the regular reassessment is both a waste of time and tax payers money.
Grumpy I don't think that you are entirely correct when saying that "However 60% of those reassessed and then reassessed again on appeal were found to be claiming benefits they should not have been entitled to." It is unlikely that the claimant would be in receipt of benefit while waiting to be reassessed. In fact they would not be getting anything and then the the appeal/tribunal would agree with that decision in fact reiterating the original decision not to pay benefit. So in my opinion no fraud has taken place in this scenario, I do not for one minute suggest that tax payers should fund in your parlance someone who has the "slightest sniff of disability" ( I would not use language like that myself as disabled people should be due our respect) However, I think I understand what you are trying to say. As I said before most if not all disabled/chronically ill people have regular contact with, Consultants, GPs, Care workers, Social Workers etc. Liasing with these professionals would allow more decisions to be made right first time. It is very apparent from my own experience that often this does not always happen. Any working practice that allows better decision making would I think pay for its self as less appeals would need to take place. To answer your final point I think many disabled people should be reassessed on a routine basis. However, there are cases such as brain injury, chronic progressive diseases such as RA, Lupus etc and lifelong learning disabilities such as profound autism that the regular reassessment is both a waste of time and tax payers money. Spurs Fan

11:52am Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

With all due respect I think you and I are talking about very different people. I'm talking about the large numbers of people who "can't work" because of a "bad back", or other similarly unprovable ailments.

" It is unlikely that the claimant would be in receipt of benefit while waiting to be reassessed. In fact they would not be getting anything and then the the appeal/tribunal would agree with that decision in fact reiterating the original decision not to pay benefit."

Yes, but what about the benefits being claimed previously to them having been reassessed and deemed ineligible for further benefits?

"As I said before most if not all disabled/chronically ill people have regular contact with, Consultants, GPs, Care workers, Social Workers etc. Liasing with these professionals would allow more decisions to be made right first time. It is very apparent from my own experience that often this does not always happen."

But what will pay for this? Consultants, GP's, care workers, social workers etc are all busy, under pressure employees. To ask them to start providing regular written reports as to the status of their patients would require a bigger workload. i.e. more staff.

By the way, why should disabled people be "due our respect" any more than anyone else? Surely we should be equally respectful of everyone, regardless of their medical condition, race, colour, sexual preference etc? In fact for the majority of disabled people I believe we do them a huge disrespect by giving benefits as if that is the only contribution to society they can make.
With all due respect I think you and I are talking about very different people. I'm talking about the large numbers of people who "can't work" because of a "bad back", or other similarly unprovable ailments. " It is unlikely that the claimant would be in receipt of benefit while waiting to be reassessed. In fact they would not be getting anything and then the the appeal/tribunal would agree with that decision in fact reiterating the original decision not to pay benefit." Yes, but what about the benefits being claimed previously to them having been reassessed and deemed ineligible for further benefits? "As I said before most if not all disabled/chronically ill people have regular contact with, Consultants, GPs, Care workers, Social Workers etc. Liasing with these professionals would allow more decisions to be made right first time. It is very apparent from my own experience that often this does not always happen." But what will pay for this? Consultants, GP's, care workers, social workers etc are all busy, under pressure employees. To ask them to start providing regular written reports as to the status of their patients would require a bigger workload. i.e. more staff. By the way, why should disabled people be "due our respect" any more than anyone else? Surely we should be equally respectful of everyone, regardless of their medical condition, race, colour, sexual preference etc? In fact for the majority of disabled people I believe we do them a huge disrespect by giving benefits as if that is the only contribution to society they can make. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

2:16pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy Old Man, although you and I may be talking about very different people unfortunately genuinely disabled people are being affected by the decisions government are taking to weed out potential fraudsters and the drive to bring down of benefit costs.

You are of course right in saying health and social care professionals are busy people. However, their input is really necessary if you want to target benefits to those that most need them. I often see decisions overturned in claimants favour because reports from case/care workers are not considered until after an original decision is made. At the end of the day it needs to be a trade off between better decision making and less tribunals etc.

One last thing, you are of course correct in saying that everyone is due equal respect regardless of age, gender ability etc. Phrases like "the slightest sniff of disability" when used in a debate about disability benefits is not being very respectful I would argue and I would certainly not use language like that myself in such a debate. You may well see that phrase as appropriate but as I said I do not and we may again need to agree to disagree.
Grumpy Old Man, although you and I may be talking about very different people unfortunately genuinely disabled people are being affected by the decisions government are taking to weed out potential fraudsters and the drive to bring down of benefit costs. You are of course right in saying health and social care professionals are busy people. However, their input is really necessary if you want to target benefits to those that most need them. I often see decisions overturned in claimants favour because reports from case/care workers are not considered until after an original decision is made. At the end of the day it needs to be a trade off between better decision making and less tribunals etc. One last thing, you are of course correct in saying that everyone is due equal respect regardless of age, gender ability etc. Phrases like "the slightest sniff of disability" when used in a debate about disability benefits is not being very respectful I would argue and I would certainly not use language like that myself in such a debate. You may well see that phrase as appropriate but as I said I do not and we may again need to agree to disagree. Spurs Fan

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree