Author |
Message |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... e-ban.html |  |  |  | Quote: Lord Freud, the welfare reform minister, said that people found making fraudulent benefits claims will face new penalties, including bans on new claims and having their assets seized. For the most serious causes of fraud, offenders could be banned from making fresh welfare claims for life, the minister argued. The Department of Work and Pensions estimates that fraudulent benefits claims cost the taxpayer around £1 billion a year. Coalition ministers have pledged to cut fraud and error in the welfare system as part of a bid to shave £11 billion off benefits spending during this Parliament. Lord Freud said that benefits fraud, often by organised gangs, ultimately hurts legitimate claimants. “We will put a stop to the fraudsters who infiltrate and steal money from our benefit system,” he said in a speech in London, “Criminal gangs and identity fraudsters who persistently steal money meant for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society will be severely punished. “We will track them down using the latest technology and when they have been caught and prosecuted, we will strip them of their assets and ban them from claiming benefits for long periods. |  |  |  |  |
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.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:23 pm |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
Good. That is all. 
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:37 pm |
|
 |
Spreadie
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm Posts: 6355 Location: IoW
|
Not good, at all. The Social are guaranteed to f**k up someone's benefit and then stitch them up as fraudsters.
_________________ Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:32 pm |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
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.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:34 pm |
|
 |
ProfessorF
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm Posts: 12030
|
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.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:51 pm |
|
 |
Spreadie
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm Posts: 6355 Location: IoW
|
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.
_________________ Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:54 pm |
|
 |
oceanicitl
Official forum cat lady
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:04 am Posts: 11039 Location: London
|
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. 
_________________Still the official cheeky one 
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:18 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
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. 
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:33 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
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.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:38 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
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. 
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:33 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
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.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:51 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
I was being very sarcastic. 
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:27 pm |
|
 |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|
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.
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:22 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
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.
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:26 pm |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

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
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:36 pm |
|
|