Dole cheat single mum given 100 years to pay back £70,000 in stolen benefit

[Paul2412]

It's irrelevant to this thread.

 

You brought the point up?

[dave_dave]

You brought the point up?

 

No I didn't, read a little more.

[Paul2412]

Yes, I definitely think they are thieves and should be boycotted in favour of local shops.

I just don't think that takes away from the fact that what this woman did is very wrong.

 

You say they are thieves and should be boycotted. I'm interested to know which companies you feel are thieves.

[dave_dave]

You say they are thieves and should be boycotted. I'm interested to know which companies you feel are thieves.

 

Previous to that, I say it's irrelevant to the thread, there are plenty of threads surrounding those issues. Why do you feel the need to turn this one into a debate about business ethics?

[Mr Prime]

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?

 

Zzz. Grow up son.

[Mecky]

Re nested #75

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwilders

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?

----------------------

 

It's not as simple as that. I work in a office (immigration) where legislation has tightened up enormously over the last few years. Because the rules have got tougher, the more the system is abused e.g. may be false documents. You can attempt to verify documents with specific authorities but after a while they get annoyed with the requests and refuse to co-operate. Then, after all that, there is the legal side, where the judge usually sides with the appellant because of the lack of burden of proof.

[L00b]

I don't just jump in and make assumptions like a lot of people on these boards do. The first post links to a Daily Mail article and that's all anyone needs to know.

 

[Darth Vader]The irony is strong in this one[/Darth Vader]

 

Joke aside, it's interesting to observe the knee-jerk reaction to blame "large profitable companies with overseas activities" and/or MPs whenever Joe Average makes the news for being a benefits cheat/tax evader: all are as bad as one another under any definition of 'equitable conduct'.

 

So why try to make excuses for any?

[HeadingNorth]

But not mine, I usually start threads at the first post to make sure I know what I'm talking about. I don't just jump in and make assumptions like a lot of people on these boards do. The first post links to a Daily Mail article and that's all anyone needs to know. The fact that the original post is published a from a daily wrag that supported Hitler says it all and you realise how the thread is going to go.

 

But that entire conversation was dead in the water years ago. The thread was only resurrected in order to talk about a new case - which was not reported in the Daily Mail. Or rather, the link we have is not from their website.

[harvey19]

It's not as simple as that. I work in a office (immigration) where legislation has tightened up enormously over the last few years. Because the rules have got tougher, the more the system is abused e.g. may be false documents. You can attempt to verify documents with specific authorities but after a while they get annoyed with the requests and refuse to co-operate. Then, after all that, there is the legal side, where the judge usually sides with the appellant because of the lack of burden of proof.

 

How do you think the system could be improved ?

[Mecky]

It's not as simple as that. I work in a office (immigration) where legislation has tightened up enormously over the last few years. Because the rules have got tougher, the more the system is abused e.g. may be false documents. You can attempt to verify documents with specific authorities but after a while they get annoyed with the requests and refuse to co-operate. Then, after all that, there is the legal side, where the judge usually sides with the appellant because of the lack of burden of proof.

 

How do you think the system could be improved ?

 

That's the problem. Regardless of what system you put in place it won't be long until a loophole is found and exploited, thanks to the Internet, telephones and whathaveyou. There are only a few people that work on systems (any system, computerised or not) and probably thousands trying to break the system, which is why systems are continually patched up or renewed.