onewheeldave Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 i wonder what percentage of the 85% was so difficult to prove due to varying reasons and sensitivities:suspect: In turn, I wonder what that actually means? ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:16 ---------- I know it's not politically correct to say it, but I'd rather a minority were allowed to get away with benefit fraud, if it meant others (known to be a much larger group) got what they're entitled to. I've heard from too many who go without dinners, or putting the heating on because they feel ashamed to claim what's theirs. I agree 100%. Though, apparently, we're both virtually benefit fraudsters ourselves, simply for holding such a view But benefit fraud costs us all. We can't get insurance against it. I suspect it is only those who are commiting the fraud who think it shouldn't be clamped down on. I imagine there's quite a lot of them posting on here. I'm no psychologist, but I do think that people are conditioned to kick those on the lowest rung of the ladder; makes them feel better about themselves. The lives of the wealthy tax dodgers mean nothing to them as they assume they are different and have no affinity with them. ...... ..... Some of that is to do with people who get so sanctimonious about benefit fraud....Anyone would think that those pointing the finger had never committed a crime. I know that at least one on here boasts about getting his 'under the counter tobacco', yet spits blood when someone gets more benefits than they're entitled to.... Yes, unfortunately, a lot of those who put the boot in when it comes to benefits claimants, are clearly far from happy with their own lives, and only feel better when attacking others, and, believing in some bizarre media-fueled conspiracy theory that benefits claimants are mainly malingering fraudsters, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense. If benefits is such a free and easy life, how come those moaning don't simply sign on and also enjoy the high-life? They'll say it's cos it's immoral, yet, every single one of them, if they won £5m on the lottery, would take it in a shot. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:18 ---------- None of which is true. Finally we get to the actual truth [*]Insufficient or no evidence of fraud was discovered in 887,468 of these. Which is pretty much what you'd expect if the accusations (of fraud) were false. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:21 ---------- You are still getting confused between fraud that is detected and undetected fraud. The fact that benefits fraud only makes up a small percentage of detected fraud is probably down to the fact that it is very difficult to detect and prove. Why not quit on it then. Put the immense amount of cash currently going towards benefit fraud investigation back into the system- after all, they're clearly not providing value-for-money (as it's so difficult to detect and prove). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 It's also what you'd expect if they're difficult to prove... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Which is pretty much what you'd expect if the accusations (of fraud) were false. It's pretty much the exact opposite of that. 85% is a made up statistic that required 4 journalistic somersaults to arrive at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 It's also what you'd expect if they're difficult to prove... Of course, if they were false, that would also account for the difficulty in proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The benefit fraud line doesn't say only ring up with proven wrongdoings it says to report suspected fraud. It takes a couple of minutes for the benefits people to check is person A receives a benefit or not. Surely that would account for over 85% of the phone calls, unless we all enjoy a life where we're in the know of our neighbours lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Of course, if they were false, that would also account for the difficulty in proof. The point being that it's impossible to determine if they were false or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The point being that it's impossible to determine if they were false or not. Another way of putting it is somewhere between 0% and 85%, but not 85%, probably nearer 0%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalharry Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Would anyone shop their neighbour? I wouldn't it's terrible. Live and let live and mind your own. You can't possibly no everything about someone's circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Would anyone shop their neighbour? I wouldn't it's terrible. Live and let live and mind your own. You can't possibly no everything about someone's circumstances. If your neighbours were squatting, making a noise at all hours, throwing rubbish everywhere outside, etc. would you consider it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orzel Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 If your neighbours were squatting, making a noise at all hours, throwing rubbish everywhere outside, etc. would you consider it? Where the hell do you live? Firth park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now