More than 85% of public tip offs on benefit 'frauds' are false

[herbalharry]

Try answering the law bit then

 

 

 

 

-

 

(*I put tenancy in brackets herbal, because I'm not sure whether living in a council house when you aren't registered there is breaking the law)

 

Benefit thievesl that's the title of the thread.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 00:49 ----------

 

Would you also ignore a shop lifter, a purse snatcher, a granny basher, a car thief, ect. ect. ect. ?

 

As above stay on topic. Don't be daft.

[*_ash_*]

Benefit thievesl that's the title of the thread.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 00:49 ----------

 

 

As above stay on topic. Don't be daft.

 

 

It's like getting blood out of a stone (to use the common phrase)

[herbalharry]

It's like getting blood out of a stone (to use the common phrase)

 

It's a thread about benefit fraud that's why.

[sutty27]

Benefit thievesl that's the title of the thread.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 00:49 ----------

 

 

As above stay on topic. Don't be daft.

 

Which is a crime, so if you are happy to ignore that crime I can only assume you would be happy to ignore other crimes.

[herbalharry]

Which is a crime, so if you are happy to ignore that crime I can only assume you would be happy to ignore other crimes.

 

You know what they say about assumption

[sutty27]

You know what they say about assumption

 

Yes, sometimes ones assumptions are correct.

[herbalharry]

Yes, sometimes ones assumptions are correct.

 

saying someone will eat chocolate cos they eat bananas is daft.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 11:23 ----------

 

turns a blind eye to littering = turns a blind eye to serious theft.

monkey logic

[Mister M]

Interesting debate from PMQs today:

 

Benefits fraud costs the government £1.3bn a year, according to official statistics, while the gap between tax owed and tax paid is put at £34bn a year by officials

 

YET:

 

The government confirmed on Wednesday that the ranks of DWP benefits investigators have swelled to 3,700 – a higher number than the one quoted by Robertson, and up from 2,600 in February last year.

That compares with 700 people who work at HM Revenue and Customs in the two units whose job it is to investigate the wealthiest 500,000 people living in the UK.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/benefit-or-tax-evasion-row-over-the-tories-targets

[ECCOnoob]

Makes sense to me.

 

There are an estimated 2.4 million benefits claimants to potentially investigate as oppose the 500,000 so called rich people to potentially investigate.

 

Most staff to the biggest task.

 

Isn't that just plain logical.

 

If we look at the pure maths and divide down the figures we could very easily say that both the benefits investigators and the HMRC tax investigators would be allocated around 650 - 700 cases each to look at.

 

How much more symmetry would people want. If this was a staff resource analysis it couldn't be more perfect.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[Cyclone]

Surely it makes sense to allocate them by the amount of money they can potentially recover.

 

£34 billion to £1.3 billion, that's a 26 to 1 ratio towards the rich...