happyhippy Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Blame the system and not this women. If it weren't so easy to cheat then there would be a lot fewer cheats. Why not instead go after the large multinational companies who use loopholes in the law to avoid paying tax or to pay less tax than they should? Simply because while I firmly believe that what they do is incredibly unethical, it is legal. Benefit fraud isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Hanging's too good for her! I have no problem with her being a dole cheat but all single mums should be shot. It's the only language they understand. Exactly, she should have her fallopians trapped in a zip then she should be turned inside out and dipped in salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Yes she is a thief and she reaped the benefits of her crimes whilst she was screwing everyone else. Unfortunately for us and everyone else we don't seem to be able to get back off her what she has already spent. Didn't her partner also 'reap the benefits'? The only problem is that he never actually claimed anything with her. While undoubtedly the onus was on her to report the changes of circumstances, he enjoyed everything as much. I think it's wrong to vilify only the woman, and not the man too in this case, if people are to vilify anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Didn't her partner also 'reap the benefits'? The only problem is that he never actually claimed anything with her. While undoubtedly the onus was on her to report the changes of circumstances, he enjoyed everything as much. I think it's wrong to vilify only the woman, and not the man too in this case, if people are to vilify anyone. Quite, and I hope he'd be easy enough to track down through his CSA payments ......LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouija Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I think it's wrong to vilify only the woman, and not the man too in this case, if people are to vilify anyone. True, but only if it can be proved he knew. For all anybody knows he could have dumped her because he found out that she'd committed fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 True, but only if it can be proved he knew. For all anybody knows he could have dumped her because he found out that she'd committed fraud. Possibly, but over some years of her not working and he doing so, and the rent continually being paid, you'd have thought he knew about some other income ..... That's why I said that the only reason he couldn't be prosecuted would be that he'd not actually fraudulently claimed. Bear in mind, he almost certainly would have been saying that he was living elsewhere, or just been very, very naive ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Yes she is a thief and she reaped the benefits of her crimes whilst she was screwing everyone else. Unfortunately for us and everyone else we don't seem to be able to get back off her what she has already spent. Without trying to defend this thief, there are bigger thieves out there and we don't pursue them at all. There are plenty of high flying city types who pay next to no tax, claim outrageous bonuses and load their pension funds. Make no mistake, this is all at our expense too, yet the Daily Mail doesn't seem to shout so loudly about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouija Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Possibly, but over some years of her not working and he doing so, and the rent continually being paid, you'd have thought he knew about some other income ..... That's why I said that the only reason he couldn't be prosecuted would be that he'd not actually fraudulently claimed. Bear in mind, he almost certainly would have been saying that he was living elsewhere, or just been very, very naive ...... Oh, I thought she'd been working as well as claiming, so could have just made out she got a better wage than she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Oh, I thought she'd been working as well as claiming, so could have just made out she got a better wage than she did. Nope, it appears to be a living together case. She wasn't working at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Without trying to defend this thief, there are bigger thieves out there and we don't pursue them at all. There are plenty of high flying city types who pay next to no tax, claim outrageous bonuses and load their pension funds. Make no mistake, this is all at our expense too, yet the Daily Mail doesn't seem to shout so loudly about it. Again, because that is legal. Immoral too, I grant you, but still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.