http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... e-ban.html


As long as you treat MP's who fiddle their expenses as fraudsters and deprive them of their pensions then it will be fair.

The real problem is that many people slip into it because of the changes in circumstances. Also living arrangements are private affairs. Can you imagine the uproar if employers based pay on living arrangements, and cut them because you were married or had someone staying.

Also this will not really affect the benefit gangs who have multiple aliases but the ordinary person.

Good.
That is all.

Not good, at all.

The Social are guaranteed to f**k up someone's benefit and then stitch them up as fraudsters.

Obviously there'd need to be an appeals process. But the types you see on the news who've blatently lied for years to claim huge sums should be financially punished. I'm not talking a few hundred quid here or there, I'm talking five figure sums.

What's the percentage of those doing that compared to the percentage who are merely using what they're entitled to?
My sister, for example, is presently unemployed but too proud to sign on and claim any of the benefits she's entitled to after 20 years of teaching.
For every one benefits cheat, there's probably a dozen who are entitled but don't claim.

FFS, thats the third time I've lost a long reply because it failed to post.

Anyway, it sounds like hard line bluster for the media news bites, with no real substance.
Most of the accomplished scroungers won't bat an eye-lid, because if they can't catch you they can't punish you.

How about they put the effort into sorting out the tax and benefits system in the first place?

Save the sound bites for the Sun readers.

I tried to claim a few years ago when I was out of work for 3 months and by the time they sorted it out I had a job so I told them where to go.

I'm actually involved in a benefits fraud case myself at the moment. Went to court last week as a witness for the prosecution but case was adjourned as the prosecuted wanted to get his Mum in as a witness. Waste of my time as I had to go to deepest Essex for it. Ho hum.

Also what if you make a mistake will that be marked as a fraudulent attempt? Wait till some six year old is in hospital because of starvation in a deprived area with no jobs, simply because the parents are banned from benefits. Where would people live? A great way of creating a huge underclass with nothing to lose who will be forced to turn to crime.

This is a publicity stunt which could never result in actual legislation. Banning somebody from making welfare claims for life would result in a massively expensive appeal to the European court which the govt would be guaranteed to lose.

And very embarrassing. Maybe the EU should have a law that bans for life any politician that comes up with a stupid law being allowed to travel within the EU.

Just to be clear, it would be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR has nothing to do with either the European Union or Community Law.

I was being very sarcastic.

I read the front page of the local rag today. Some woman claimed £51,000 a year in benefits whilst she worked as a pub landlady and ran the pub. Obviously there has to be some way of punishing such people. I have some ideas but they are extreme.

I think lifetime bans are going to be unenforceable but there should be a way of making sure fraudsters are punished, pay back their fraud and also deterred from doing it again.

I've seen benefit fraudsters sent to prison as much as 30 years after the fraud took place (they were also ordered to re-pay the money). I don't think this lifetime ban will add anything to the existing system.

Excuse me, but I don't remember seeing anything in the ECHR that's specifically about social benefits. There are various 'material rights' but they were very careful not specify exactly how those rights should be met. Even as implemented in the Human Rights Act, only the following are specified :-

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections

I don't see a right to be housed, or clothed or fed in there. The ECHR is possibly over-ridden by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25 of that states..



The EC rules (and therefore the HRA) are based on on the UN Declaration but even the UN Declaration merely states people have the right to those things, not the requirement to be provided with them. The 'right to' something simply means nobody is able to deprive you of those things or stop you from acquiring them, not that you should automatically be provided with them. This is something a very large number of people seem to be confused about.

We provide the welfare state because we believe we, as a civilised nation, should. I happen to agree with this notion. The question in the case of that support being withdrawn from someone for abusing it is not about infringing their human rights by not providing it but it possibly could be if it were decided that such withdrawal was 'inhuman or degrading treatment' for the crime of abusing the system. However I don't think that's an open and shut case by any means.

Jon