Fuck benefit fraud, they should be sorting corporate fraud
Me | 18.08.2010 04:16 | Sheffield
1. Benefit fraud costs the UK £900million a year.
2. Corporate fraud costs the UK £80billion a year, and that's just the fraud that's reported.
3. And they don't even need the money.
Yet again, the papers are positively foaming at the mouth about "scroungers." Across the tabloid spectrum, hate and loathing is pointed squarely at Gary Bateman and Joanne Shepherd, who have 12 kids and no job.
The Sun, as ever, has led the way. It tells us how the "idle benefit scrounger" - "idle" being an entirely recundant word given the definition of "benefit scrounger," but never mind - has "bragged" that they have enough children to form a football team. The "shameless" pair have also "whined" for others to mind their own business.
The Sun, of course, has called the BBC's reporting "a mockery of impartial journalism."
Returning to the story, let's have a look at those benefits. The paper demands that people be outraged at "the more than £30,000 a year they claim from the State." Let's view this in some perspective.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (PDF), "a single person in the UK needs to earn at least £14,400 a year before tax in 2010, to afford a basic but acceptable standard of living." However, "a couple with two children needs £29,200." The problem is that we're not talking about a single person or even a childless couple. They have 11 children and another on the way.
Likewise, the "free five-bedroom house" only sounds outrageous out-of-context. The £1,200 a month rent comes off their £30,000, leaving them £15,600 a year to feed 11 dependants - who are, of course, innocent of any "scrounging." And, again, it's five bedrooms between thirteen people. Hardly "spacious."
This dross comes as the Scum launches its campaign to "beat benefit cheats."
As Where's the Benefit? points out;
Despite the fact that the government has a hotline for reporting benefit fraud, The Sun have felt the need to set up their own. If you're thinking of shopping someone you suspect is a benefit cheat it's worth noting that the government number is an 0800 one so the call is free. The Sun's number is an 020 7 one so if you live in London you'll get charged the local call rate, if you live elsewhere in the UK you'll be charged a national call rate. I figure if you're in the business of reporting people for benefit fraud because you think their TV is too big you're probably keen to know what the call costs.
She now feels the need to "nail my curtains to the wall so I don't get seen typing this and reported to The Sun for being a scrounger who's wasting hardworking Sun readers' money on owning a crappy old computer."
Which, of course, is what it's all about. Gary Bateman and Joan Shepherd are extreme cases - multitudinous children is not the norm for welfare claimants, as any halfway intelligent person should know already.
In fact, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation point out the following;
Working-age people on benefits remain well below the minimum income standard. Even though benefit rises in April 2009 exceeded the published inflation rate at the time, they were similar to the rise in the cost of a minimum household budget. This means that people on benefits have got no closer to reaching an acceptable living standard.
The point of sensational stories about "scroungers" is to mask this.
In many cases, such as "the shameless benefits cheat who was caught secretly dancing while fraudulently claiming £20,000 in disability benefits," the stories are deliberate misinformation. In this case, "he spent years virtually crippled with arthritis before an operation finally enabled him to have an active life."
The judge in this case had a compassion and sense of reason lacking in the tabloid media;
You learned to live frugally and contentedly, going out rarely, until the dancing came into your life, which seemed to transform your joie de vivre. There is absolutely no suggestion you are a shirker who has avoided work. It is agreed that the sad fact is you were afflicted by arthritis from as young an age as 25 when most people are enjoying life with an abundance of vigour. In your mid to late 40s you were assessed as being eligible for the appropriate benefits. A time came when you undertook a hip replacement operation which had a significant impact on your mobility. Your life opened up because of the dancing and interest in the swing music of the '40s, which has a considerable following, and you became an accomplished performer on public display. I suspect over time the claim being made went to the back of your mind and it was something you took for granted. Your case was genuine at the start and then drifted into dishonesty. It is not in the public interest that you should be deprived of your liberty. You are doing good work by taking the activity (swing music) into care homes, that brings some pleasure and therapy into lives as a result of the commitment you make in that way.
However, in the name of shit-stirring, finger-pointing reaction, the Sun continues to gloss this over and simply call his benefit claim a "downright lie."
This is in fact the case with the garbage pumped out by the Sun and its fellow gutter rags.
The reasons for this should be obvious. It's not spurred on by benefit fraud itself. In fact, as the London School of Economics point out, "over the last decade, the levels of fraud in the system have dropped from over 2% of total benefits payments in 2000 to well below 1% in 2009."
But "the coalition government’s initiatives may simply spread a lot of alarm amongst benefits claimants and poorer households, doing little to deter fraud but a great deal to discourage legitimate claimants."
Meanwhile, the culprits behind the financial crisis have disappeared from the headlines. They crop up to warn us that penalising them will force them to leave the country. But, otherwise, we're to be incensed at "fake" homeless people and "benefit scroungers."
As I said last week;
More job losses are on the way, and the government is set to send more people and communities into unemployment and even deeper poverty. Blaming us for their actions - from the Thatcher era and beyond to the present "austerity" - may soothe their consciences, but it does nothing to address the real problems.
But then, they do not want it to. What they want is for different sections of the working class to turn on one another as they make us pay for their mistakes and shore up their privileges.
Gary Bateman isn't axing your job, slashing funds for services, or eroding local infrastructure. David Cameron, who backs the Sun, is. They want to boot us onto the dole whilst we're shopping those who are already there.
Me
Comments
Hide the following 27 comments
So...
18.08.2010 10:25
AH
Grow the fuck up!
18.08.2010 11:18
The sun is for fucking retards. I wouldn't wipe my arse with it if i were caught short. All the unemployed people I've ever met have all been sun readers. The sun is the newspaper of choice of the unemployed.
Do an article with some gravitas and make it interesting. Get some facts, publish that. Take a camera and take some pictures of the unemployed. Do a decent story.
Don't just regurgitate the anus food that the sun print. The sun is for retards.
Den
Gready cheaters
18.08.2010 11:25
Think what hospitals/nursing homes that could build! Benefit fiddlers are scum, especially continuous ones. One building tradesman geezer around here has been out of work years, but goes out 2 or 3 days a week almost every week earning dosh. Yeah, yeah, yeah! He's telling the benefits authorities about every quid he's earning, for him, his wife and 4 kids he's claiming benefits for, in his council house, paying no rent, no community charges, free eye, dental treatment for all his family, getting family allowances for 4 kids, etc, etc, etc! Sad, eh? Car never off the road! Then there's my nephew. Eight kids to 3 different women, they and those kids all in council dwellings, getting benefits. Real sad, eh?
And, to top it all, the goverment will catch very few benefit fiddlers, simply because few will get shopped! A tradesman on benefits can get much more dosh by working on quiet than many poor souls do by having a job on PAYE, taxed up to the eyeballs! Unless folk shop benefit fiddlers, the goverment won't know they are fiddling, will they? Unless some of you out there know different. Ummmm! It's the PAYE workers and other honest non-working folk who are being ripped off by greedy benefit cheaters.
Francis
Two Wrongs
18.08.2010 11:33
Cutting benefit fraud which is £900m if you include the cost of recovery and "administrative errors resulting in overpayment" but £100m if you only include the prosecutable frauds counts as one wrong. £16Bn in unclaimed benefit more than compensates for that.
Most people who are investigated for benefit fraud are actually found to have been underpaid. The underpayment is offset agains the overpayment and the amount outstanding is, usually, in the favour of the claimant. The truth is, "benefit fraud" is a fraudulent term for maladministration in the majority of cases. That is one wrong.
The cost of business fraud is over £80Bn. Part of that private sector fraud is actually housing benefit fraud. Housing benefit is the area where fraud is believed to be most profitable for the private sector. Usually landlords overclaiming or claiming for empty properties. Similarly, there are fraudulent and bogus training organisations that take billions out of the DWP budget every year. That is a second wrong.
Put it all together and you can quickly understand that tackling private sector fraud automatically tackles benefit fraud. Knowing where the two wrongs are is a much better guide than mere ideology. Private sector fraud goes on because it is profitable. Take the example of carers. Carers are estimated to contribute £84Bn in unpaid work to the economy. The overwhelming majority are on benefits. That is one of the largest frauds, perpetrated by successive governments against the electorate. That £84Bn is estimated from the worth of the "market" in caring to private businesses. Who get an effective £84Bn turnover industry from which they cherry pick profits that, ultimately, the taxpayer pays for.
Tackle the private sector fraud and the public sector fraud will radically shrink.
Passing Shopper
Shop a Benefit Cheat
18.08.2010 11:36
There are 2,000 guilty verdicts in a court every year.
The big money is not in benefit fraud. But there is a lot of jealous poor people reporting a lot of other poor people for imaginary crimes.
Shop A Benefit Cheat
70,000 eh
18.08.2010 11:58
No there aren't. It isn't anywhere near that.
That would make over 2 million reports a month. That's 24 million a year. There aren't that many claimants in total. The call centres that are used to encourage snitching couldn't take that kind of volume.
Leave the witchunts to the witchunters at the tabloids.
Indymedia should be about compelling journalism, not regurgitated state sanctioned vomit.
T
Benefits = a trap
18.08.2010 12:24
What they need are jobs that not only pay a liveable wage but jobs that are also mentally stimulating not just boring drudgery. If these can be provided the number of people claiming will be cut, levels of mental health conditions such as depression will fall as will crime rates and alcoholism amongst the worst off in society. Benefits are a spiral of despair designed to keep people downtrodden.
If I didn't have a job I'd be pretty fucking depressed about the situation too. £50 a week? With rising costs of gas and electric, bus fares, and food costs... doesn't really go very far these days.
Free thinker
'The sun is for retards'
18.08.2010 12:46
Well done, you have managed to sum up the Sun's readers with the same sort of intelligence which they use to generalise and stereotype across whole groups of people. This isnt a bad article and it makes a couple of good points. Why do people feel the need to come on and absolutely slate people who write things on here?
Bob
Really Interesting points
18.08.2010 14:37
Where this is very complicated is that many cannot find ways in which to contribute to their communities but they would if they could and would work if possible. Many are put on the scrap heap before they start adult life. It is tragic and no-one deserves a free ride in life both for their own sake and those who would carry them . They make it difficult for those on benifits to do voluntary work. I really don't know, it is virtually impossible to work out if someone is just "scrounging" or in a deperate capitalist made wheel of oppression, because let's face it, people with enough to get by, enough to eat are not going to revolt. Put them in work with a crappy job and bossy bosses and they might do. The fact is that there are things that need to be done for all our sakes in any society capitalist or anarchist. Sewers need to be kept open, potatoes need to be picked, the soil dug, refuse collected, the sick comforted, children cared for ad inifinitum. Any situation where some are working all day whilst supporting those who do sweet fanny adams is a system which encourages parisitic behaviour and is a really bad system. I suppose the answer is in sorting this out from the grass roots up as the state likes it just as it is. Personally I haven't got the foggiest, all I know is that I don't like hearing about how people don't want to do things like pick spuds as though it were beneath THEIR dignity, well I've done it and enjoyed the exercise and comaraderie AND I WAS GRATEFUL!!! Unless we are all going to starve to death someone needs to do it yet farmers in these parts can find no-one to collect in the fruit which is rotting on the trees. Let us as a society make sure that those who do are paid properly i.e more than the bankers who do nought of use in fact the bankers could do a spot of spud picking, it'd be good for 'em.
We should also pay for an army of carers to solve the absolute disgrace of young children forced to care for ailing parents. I would rather public money went to the poorest and most vulnerable not the bankers and not those who actively choose to make their situation more difficult by creating more dependents.
The way I try and get my head around this is by imagining that we live in a community with 100 people in and the impact that a few individuals would have if they behaved like the bankers are or if they refused to help with work but benifited from the fruits of the labour of others. I suspect that they would be given their marching orders unless they used violence against the workers and developed a ruling class.
Furthermore the Sun is indeed crap but it has a massive readership we underestimate it at our peril.
Lynn Sawyer
re: "All the unemployed people I've ever met have all been sun readers."
18.08.2010 14:45
You can't have met very many unemployed people then...
Also I'm informed that many people read the Sun for the extensive sports coverage - reading it from the back to the front. The Sun just use sports as bait to try to inflict their right wing bigotry on people.
I agree that the Sun's news coverage is written for morons though.
I don't care about people fiddling their benefit to make ends meet but having 12 kids is irresponsible when you consider how overcrowded and polluted the world is already, and the wilderness areas disappearing at an alarming rate.
It's not the kids' fault though so how can an incentive be provided to people not to breed like flies that doesn't also punish the children?
@non
Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose
18.08.2010 17:02
CARROTT
You're Sun-readers aren't you!
GUNMAN
How did you know?
CARROTT
You've sawn the wrong ends off your shotguns...
Now to the serious position of the media is distorting the balance of truth.
BROTHERS-IN-ARMS: CAPITALISM AND CORPORATE JOURNALISM
http://medialens.org/alerts/10/100616_brothers_in_arms.php
“An essential role of corporate journalism is to shore up public confidence in an unjust, crisis-riven financial and economic system. Although plenty of gloom and doom is permitted, especially in the face of obvious crisis, the legitimacy of the system is rarely questioned.”
DO THE SUPER RICH MATTER?
“Do the Super-Rich Matter? Forensically analyses the impact the wealthiest are having on our wellbeing. It reveals an economy increasingly skewed to serve the interests of a tiny minority and a society losing touch with a basic sense of fairness.”
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-15314-f0.cfm?theme=touchstone
A best sum up of this campaign by the Sun is;
“Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose”
Quote; Friedrich Nietzsche
Well Said Me!
“What they want is for different sections of the working class to turn on one another as they make us pay for their mistakes and shore up their privileges.”
terratech
Homepage: http://unemploymentmovement.com
@anon
18.08.2010 18:03
Basically people need work which is decently paid in decent conditions with autonomy and security. Not some crappy shite such as working in a call centre calling people at home or being a scummy bailiff. People should not have to accept bad conditions and good luck to those who take the state's dosh to do activism, those who get by and help others but those who think that others should just wipe their arses make other people'slives hell(and there are a few) I have little time for.
Lynn Sawyer
12 kids - who is at fault / social fairness / advantages
18.08.2010 18:47
--Apportioning the blame--
Why? Because the parents are being cruel to the children.
If it wasnt for the state's parachute, the children would probably die from starvation. That isn't the states fault, it isn't the childrens fault - its the parents fault. Therefore, they should be the ones that lose out.
--Social Fairness--
Why should i pay for other people to enjoy the benefits of having lots of children?
They want the kids, they can pay for them. If you then adopt the "Well, I'll just have a kid anyway and you'll have to pay me benefits otherwise its cruel to the child haha" attitude, then make them sterile so that they can't do it again and take the piss.
--Advantages Of system--
i. It would prevent further cruelity to children.
ii. It would be socially farier (people not having to pay for other people irreponsibility)
iii. It would punish those who were at blame
The only other viable option is to stop all benefits and let the parents deal with their own mess. But thats hardly fair on the kids so isn't really a good option only in a last resort. What is important is that the current system can't just be left to go on without anyone having the guts to deal with the problem.
stonesthrow away
Drop the prejudice & elitism.
18.08.2010 19:47
Who the Fuck made you God! stonesthrow away
Lynn, poor mixed up kid
“The way I try and get my head around this is by imagining that we live in a community with 100 people”
If everyone lived in such a community we would all have different values and depth of maturity. One value you seemly won’t to ignore is loyalty; in such a community they would defend their own even if bad.
Quote; I hope you hear this above your prejudice & elitism.
“While the old social evils of ignorance, want, idleness, squalor and crime identified by Beveridge have been overcome, they have been replaced by five new social evils, elitism, exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair. In their modern form social evils suggest that elitism is efficient, prejudice is natural, exclusion is necessary, greed is good and despair is inevitable. A continued belief in these tenets both maintains and helps to exacerbate extreme social inequality, which harms everyone.”
Daniel Dorling, author of Injustice: Why social inequality persists
terratech
Homepage: http://unemploymentmovement.com
Campaign against the Sun Newspaper
18.08.2010 20:16
warning-7
Now print a sheet of these off and cover every Sun Paper at your local WH Smiths.
Journalism Warning Labels
It seems a bit strange to me that the media carefully warn about and label any content that involves sex, violence or strong language — but there's no similar labelling system for, say, sloppy journalism and other questionable content.
http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/
terratech
terratech : at least i have an opinion
18.08.2010 20:48
Observations:
1. You persistently write a lot of words but don't actually voice an opinion that can be latched onto. I have read your comments and have no idea on what your opinion is on anything.
2. You are happy to quote other people's opinions rather than your own as a substitute. You are happy to hide behind other people's words rather than your own.
3. You clearly don't want to be criticised and so deliberately do not write anything that is straight-talking eg. "I believe XYZ", or "I disagree and think ABC".
4. You readily criticise things but rarely offer any alternatives.
5. You fence sit a lot. You won't actually pick a side on an issue or tell people what you think beyond a cloudy set of smart-alec comments that amount to no real point.
Conclusion:
You seem to avoid conveying your own thoughts and opinions, instead hiding behind other peoples. You steadfastly avoid writing anything that can be criticised or commented on. You offer non construction ideas that can be supported or disapproved of because you are too fearful of criticism. Wakeup. Having an opinion and clearly announcing it is not a crime. Stop being scared of being criticised.
stonesthrow away
level of support is low for baby making machines
18.08.2010 22:11
Might be worth getting truer perspective here. The comments clearly show that people are overwhelming supporting the comments that say it is an outrage, and are against the comments who support the family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303794/Daughter-benefits-scrounger-tenth-child-way-brands-father-lazy-useless.html
Mutt
Quoting DWP statistics on Benefit Fraud
19.08.2010 02:21
18.08.2010 11:58
"There are 70,000 reports per day of Benefit Fraud."
No there aren't. It isn't anywhere near that.
That would make over 2 million reports a month. That's 24 million a year. There aren't that many claimants in total. The call centres that are used to encourage snitching couldn't take that kind of volume.
Leave the witchunts to the witchunters at the tabloids.
Indymedia should be about compelling journalism, not regurgitated state sanctioned vomit.
T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DWP pays for 70,000 reports per day of Benefit Fraud. Therefore, in the world of accounting and balance sheets, there are 48 reports per minute. This figure comes from the DWP - and has been reiterated several times in Freedom of Information Act Enquiries.
70,000 reports per day does not need to correspond to the number of claimants. It needs to correspond to the number of reports. It would be possible for one hundred people to report the same claimant once or a malicious caller to report the claimant one hundred times.
The substantive point is that the number of claimed occurences of benefit fraud vastly outnumber the number of sucessfully prosecuted cases of fraud. The infrastructure that exists is about command, control and communication from the centre. This is why the amount of unclaimed benefit far exceeds the amount of fraudulently claimed benefit.
The 70,000 reports per day tht the DWP claim comes from a range of sources. Experian credit checks - which have been in place for a number of years - belligerent ex spouses, concerned members of the public, front office staff, (LMS) Labour Market System data queries and so on. The number might well be shocking, but it is not implausible.
What the 70,000 reports per day transforming into a miniscule number of prosecutions shows is that there is a witchunt and that it is systemic. Telling people off in a high handed voice and claiming they are sullying Indymedia by pointing out such embarassing facts simply perpetuates the witchunt. Which is less a witchunt and more a transformation of unemployed peoples lives into an open prison.
There was no witchunt intended by quoting the ludicrous figure put out by the DWP. I was taking the piss out of the laughable nature of the withchunt. Now, while it remains possible. When September ends, the laughter will not longer be possible. Benefit fraud will cease to be an issue as benefits cease to exist.
Presumably, there will be well meaning voices from the liberal left instructing people not to be drawn into witchunts or finger pointing. It should most certainly not be anybody's intention to leave the witchunts to the tabloids. If we do then they will hunt us all down in the time honoured manner Niemöller pointed out of more historical authoritarians.
Passing Shopper
You Made My Piont
19.08.2010 19:30
its illogical
Anyway thought I`d better inform you that you made the point for me, Urh… presenting `Elitism, Exclusion and Prejudice as Natural`, exulting these values to the point of the only logical answer. This mind-set is `Perverse` and Malevolent, but what we see so often coming from the Right Wing.
So another Mutt to the stonethrow away Mob of Right Wing mutters in believing 2+3=10. The jump in the logical process is amazing, yet if Indy media is such a speck on the arse of Journalism, why is it that you have even bothered to post?
Look to the picture; both illogical and apt for a pair of Mutts cleaning up who need to up there shit.
terratech
Busted, the Sun doesn’t shine so Bright
19.08.2010 20:25
Rupert Murder Murdoch
Well if you’re going to play `Holier than thou` Mr Newspaper mogul, we might as well run the dirt found in your closet.
The only person that needs to be haled onto the rack, hung, drawn and quartered is this man.
The Artful Dodgers
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, a very big player indeed, pays “almost no tax worldwide” – according to Boyle and Simms in their New Economics – A Bigger Picture; but as Mr Ellson works for one of Murdoch’s papers I’ll excuse him from reminding us about that.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/the-artful-dodgers/
Murdochs Legal Tax Evasion
While most newspapers groups in Britain pay 30% or more in corporation tax, Murdoch's News International (which since 1986 has made profits of nearly £1bn (£979.4m) pays virtually nothing. Thanks to the adroit but quite legal way in which Murdoch's accountants have transferred profits and losses in his multinational company from one country to another, sometimes involving letterbox companies in offshore tax havens. It may be an embarrassing disclosure to both Murdoch and his new friend Tony Blair. It also explains how his BSkyB can afford to secure a virtual monopoly on all football matches played in Britain. And he can afford to wage a price war on weaker papers.'(from Mail on Sunday, 03 Dec 95)
http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/news_items/2004_news/scum_history.html
Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims
Rupert Murdoch's News Group News¬papers has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists' repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking
Tax dodging helps Murdoch buy the Journal
“British taxpayers have been forced to pick up a particularly large slice of Murdoch’s tax bill
http://thekomisarscoop.com/2007/08/tax-dodging-helps-murdoch-buy-the-journal/
RUPERT MURDOCH: AMERICA’S OWN GOEBBELS
Because of Rupert Murdoch, the other news channels take the crazies seriously and give equal time to everyone from climate change deniers to anti-abortion terrorists to women-haters, Mexican immigrant-thumpers, gay-bashers, birthers, creationists, and Christians who demonize folks who aren’t their kind of Christian. Apparently, being balanced now means you have to balance common sense with the most outrageous BS from the most extreme upchucker of absolute BS from the bizarro world of complete and total and utter BS beyond BS.
http://blogs.monografias.com/sistema-limbico-neurociencias/2010/03/15/rupert-murdoch-americas-own-goebbels/
terratech
terrovoid
19.08.2010 20:56
I'm not having a go at you, but I can totally understand why no-one would want to employ you. Your communication abilities are very poor. One could say atrocious. I notice your website suffers from a similar rambling with no coherent train of thought. Here is one of your paragraphs as an example:
"So another Mutt to the stonethrow away Mob of Right Wing mutters in believing 2+3=10"
- This doesn't mean anything! It is not even a proper sentence and certainly makes no sense.
"The jump in the logical process is amazingy, yet if Indy media is such a speck on the arse of Journalism, why is it that you have even bothered to post?"
- You neglect to say why it is amazing. It is left up to the reader to draw their own conclusion (poor communication).
- The 2nd bit is clearly just griping and has no conclusive reasoning. The facts Mutt mentioned STAND ON THEIR OWN MERIT regardless of why Mutt decided to post on indymedia. Why Mutt posted is completely irrelevent - a fact is still a fact. In this case, the majority of people are against Baby Making Machines. Yet, you seem more concerned with intent rather than the fact which you have completely avoided because you clearly don't have anything to useful to say.
Can i suggest that you could improve your communication by writing clear and concise paragraphs. Avoid the smart alec comments until the end. Clear communication is a vital skill in any workplace.
stonesthrow away
@ Terratech
20.08.2010 08:26
I do not believe the Sun or the Daily Mail so have absolutely no right to judge anyone as I do not have the correct information. I am aware though that there are people bankers on one end of the scale who take huge amounts of public money and those who chose to be on benifits as a lifestyle choice and though able to do so do nothing to contribute to their communities. I of course am not in a position to point the finger going "scrounger" as I will not have the full facts in any matter. I cannot name a corrupt banker or anyone else with any real certainity of parisitic behaviour. The people with 12 children might, just might have had a contraception failure, they may have other reasons I do not know. Furthermore I would really rather people were on benifits than working for some shitty company that harms the environment, people or animals, that calls people up at midnight to ask them if they want a new fridge, that spies on other people etc. In fact it is very difficult to get a job which is ethical so yes when people choose to go on the dole rather than work in an abbatoir I think that is absolutely right and proper. It is also honourable for the benifit of both self and others to refuse jobs which exploit through bad pay and low/no safety provisions.
My bugbear is that those who do work very hard, or have worked hard for their entire lives are little better off than those who have not. Ordinary folk who have scrimped and saved all their lives in order that they have a decent retirement have found that their savings/retirement funds have been plundered and that all their efforts were in vain and then they see others who have never ever worked (and I include non paid work, volunteering, activism, caring as work), have no intention of working and who have virtually the same standard of living and they are very bitter, especially as it is partly their squandered money which has gone into the pot to pay for it all. This is not the fault of anyone in particular it is simply the system but it is unjust and it causes bitterness and resentment which should be aimed at the state.
My idea of a decent society is where we all have a say in how we run things and where we all share the load unless we are ill or elderly (whereby we are cared for). Some people do look down their noses at certain essential things that have to be done if we are to survive and of course we all have different skills and energy levels but I would not like to try and sort out a community where a significant number of people threw a hissy fit if they were required to contribute their time and effort BUT expected others to do the grotty things that they themselves eschew. We would be up to our eyeballs in shit with no food in months if we all adopted this attitude. There are quite a few people around who are simply spoilt, who regard work of any description and doing anything for anyone else as contemptable, something to sneer at even though they benifit and are alive because of the efforts of others. Then there are those who "for a laugh" crush whole fields of wheat, smash up the homes of the vulnerable, etc. Sorry, no time for them, in a small community they would be excluded to fend for themselves unless they sorted themselves out, if they starved, well so be it.
If I lived in a small community of about 100 it would be a bit clearer what the truth of the matter was. If the community had decided that each person who was able contributed to the common good growing food, repairing dwellings etc and one person sat on his/her arse all day living off the labours of others that person would not be very popular. If that person along with someone else who also did nothing to contribute decided to have as many children as possible that is 14 dependents. A community which did maybe 5 hours of work a day would maybe now have to do 7 to cope, bear in mind that there would be other children, the elderly and the sick to support, maybe people would limit their own family size to keep the community in sustainable numbers. Loyalty? Where the fuck is the loyalty from these 2 in this hypothetical situation? It gets worse. With a large brood this family begins to dominate the community and call the shots. I think that there will always be people who like to live off of the backs of others no matter how idyllic society might become. I think that if we do one day have small communities whereby a tiny minority think that they can sit about whilst others do all the work that they will be told to piss off or pull themselves together. Maybe when the stark choice of expulsion or doing a fair share is mooted that is when "maturity" kicks in.
Lynn Sawyer
70,000 per day
20.08.2010 10:40
You missed out the advertising 'campaign' that the government wages relentlessly on tv and in newspapers to encourage people to 'be good citizens' by concocting nonsense about other people.
The TV stations, newspapers and advertising agencies do really quite well out of this creaming off the government. Witchunts are very profitable for them.
Benefit fraud throws up a few hard cases a year where people are genuinely milking the system and taking money away from people who genuinely need it. That is matched by 70,000 people a year (clearly that figure is 90% time-wasters responding to tabloid/Government witchunts and terror stories) who also take money away from people who genuinely need it by allowing the Government to waste millions in benefit payments on advertising agencies.
Once again its jobs for the boys.
I am disabled and I resent money which I should receive to help me being spent on nepotists so they can dine at expensive restaurants and drive Farrari's throwing my benefit payments at each other like it was confetti.
All of this crap about benefit scroungers is once again appearing to mask the real problem. Thieving of the benefit budget by nepotists and jobsworths, advertising pony-tails, government ministers and media tycoons.
Thieving degenerate little fuckers.
T
Lynne
20.08.2010 18:58
Is there trouble? Yes often, of kids running amok, noisy neighbours and drunkenness but hey that’s life. You cannot regulate or legislate it away. It was there 1000 years ago and will be there for another 1000 years. However today is it right to have a large family? NO! But as stated I live in a community that values family so how do you put the message across while at the same time keep those values that have protected the community from implosion of the worst excesses of a broken society?
Well the first thing you don’t do is start ripping into their only means of support (oh, I forgot to mention the average income for an estate like mine is 10 thousand and it is in an area of high unemployment). The consequences have been as expected when people are under stress, especially financial (Broken Homes, fatherless Children etc.). Now the area has under gone several recessions since I started living on the estate and not recovered in the so called good times but kept together.
What has kept this community together? Has been the little amounts they have earned on the side, yep Fraud. With the years taking their toll, for many the black economy has become lucrative however for the majority this is not the case. As campaigns have come and gone to suppress this sort of behaviour it has always hit the worst off and the community has suffered.
So what of the campaign by the Sun now? It comes at a time of a floundering economy where the aim of this government is seen to be, to make the community pay over again in lost jobs and further poverty. So how else would you expect a member of that community to react? While it looks like you shout from the side-lines at the depravity of such estates, we also have others saying we should be sterilised and can’t we guess at what level this line of thinking would lead to except incarceration in work camps.
Lynne while I understand how peeved of you are about some people’s behaviour, it is wrong to tar all with the same brush. The effects on my community of such campaigns will be enormous and with it starting so soon when we are not in any state of recovery or will get to any resemblance of what has been lost for another twenty years, can’t you see how these attacks will remove any hope of being able to move on and not just damage but irrevocably play into the hands of those with malevolent political aims.
If there is a cure to this situation my personal view would be to have a `Basic Income`. IDS`s welfare reforms came very close to this but the political will to see even these plans shifted into gear has halted for the status quo. The means to achieving this would mean the removal of the `welfare tag` to people being able work pt. /ft. time within a structured escalating tax system, where it would be possible to be even yes, lazy or for those with the motivation to devote themselves to charity work.
Preference would be for people to Google such a system as putting a further explanation to this might entail writing another page of my garble words. I like you believe the welfare system needs to be changed but campaigns like the Sun spread contempt and hate and break communities. For this situation to be resolved we are going to have to think differently, without all the political ideology that comes from self-interested groups. Hence my website, built on a social platform I do promote self-reliance but like most things that start with a reactionary bent, there will be time for reflection, rage and even rebellion on what every society needs to address before even the first brick of its society is laid and that is how it looks after its members.
OK that part was a bit of a plug for my website, but essentially if questions like this are left to fester and tabloids start setting the agenda, we are in a whole load of shit that Lynne I don’t think you want to come about.
terratech
That 70,000 per day not Per Year.
21.08.2010 16:26
You say 70,000 per year. The raw figure is 70,000 per day. Given that about 2,000 people a year are successfully prosecuted the number of time wasters far exceeds the 90% you talk about. In fact, it is closer to 99% timewasting. I insist on quoting the DWP raw figure because when you apply some numeracy to the figures, you begin to realise how ludicrous they are.
You pointed out that 70,000 is in the millions per year. Yes it is. That is 25,550,000 complaints a year. That means, to deal with the complaints there must be one complaint responded to every 0.8 seconds for every single day of the year. Every benefit agency "action" is time and motion studied. The minimum time unit is six minutes. So, in order to respond to the 70,000 per year there must be 450 people employed to respond. Those people would not be able to work twenty four hours a day, so there would need to be three shifts. Which makes 1350 people.
1350 people is roughly the size of a call centre. Now, if I were a multinational computer services supplier and wanted to justify the costs of a call centre then I would be happy to say that you could deal with "up to 70,000 call per day with our 450 seat call centre". So, regardless of my disbelief at the 70,000 frauds per day (what they mean is 70,000 accusations of fraud per day - very different meaning) I quote the DWP. Because then you can reasonably ask the DWP to explain the figure.
When the DWP explain the 70,000 figure, it turns out that all of the "Billions lost through fraud" are actually moneys actually paid to those call centre staff, plus the fraud back office staff and legal teams which are then recovered from fraudsters. Think about it carefully, that element of the "Fraud Billions" is actually paid back: no financial loss is actually incurred. Usually, someone accused of fraud has actually been underpaid.
In order to make the fraud charge stick in a court of law (and therefore recover money) the DWP must calculate all the benefits owing. The act of calculating this is added onto the "Billions lost through fraud". The money backpaid to the claimant and then recovered from them has never left the DWP. So that would shrink the "billions lost" figure considerably.
Finally, the overwhelming majority of fraud cases are dealt with by using an administrative penalty. Ever been sanctioned? Well, that goes down as fraud. Turn up late and get sanctioned and that counts into the fraud pot. If the amount of fraud (and let us suppose someone has actually committed a fraud) is less than £2000 then an administrative penalty will be applied rather than a court process. This is to save money. It also means that the DWP claim a lot of things that are not fraud (such as people turning up late or not providing bank details) are classed as fraud. This is the overwhelming bulk of the "billions lost through fraud". Essentially, it is when the DWP, for whatever magical reason, decides to avoid litigation and use administration.
The illusion that is has depends on the 70,000 per day that the DWP believes. The 70,000 has formed policy and business processes that are clearly wrong and broken. But 70,000 per day allows the DWP to be administered in a particular way. Asking the DWP to explain this figure makes what they actually spend money on and where the actual fraudulent or deceptive behaviour takes place. It is not with claimants.
You, me and every other taxpayer are paying for a system that assumes 70,000 case of fraud a day can be dealt with. So, the system puts in places call centres that are designed to take high volumes of calls. Do you really want your financial future to be decided in six minutes? Then the costing of fraud - how much £1 of benefit fraud actually costs - is worked out on the principle that the fraudster must pay for the system.
What happens when there are no fraudsters? Or, when there are so few fraudsters that the system could never be paid for? That situation has been coming into existence since 1997 when the rate of benefit fraud was reduced below 0.1%. Since then, the whole system has been living on a lie (although, it is merely one lie on top of others).
Benefit fraud debate should not really about claimants. It would be simpler and cheaper to abolish the whole system and replace it with a guaranteed income of £14K per year per head (the amount people need to live on) with realistic levels of taxation for those in work. Over the course of a parliament, that reform would actually make more cuts in public spending than Cameron and Clegg could imagine.
Unfortunately it will not happen: they need the poor to be thieving bastards.
The 70,000 per day is a figure used to decide policy. Taking it at face value and demanding explanations instead of hysteria is far more productive than shouting witch hunt.
Passing Shopper
@terratech
23.08.2010 10:52
I think where we agree is that communities shhould look after one another and if that is what you have where you live, brilliant. I am lucky where I live as well but thre are of course issues. I just do not think that the benifits system is ethical or in the interests of either those on them or those paying for them. I think it is grossly insulting and disempowering for millions of people to be told that they are good for nothing but the dole queue. The state is happy because they get cheap labour from poorer countries either through migration or by putting factories overseas, they get no union trouble, pay abysmal wages and throw people on the scrap heap when they want. Those on benifits are consumers too so they keep on buying stuff and as long as there is enough to get by on there will be no real trouble. I have no answers but I suspect that dealing with this problem, getting back self esteem, contributing to community, making neighbourhooods safe, caring for the elderly, cleaning the streets up will have to come from the grassroots and people organising themselves.
I have spoken to colleagues who have been told by clients who have no work paid or unpaid that they can't do any cooking or cleaning for themselves because they have children(I am talking about ordinary kids and parents who have no special needs) and thus need home support!! That is really worrying that adults cannot organise their own basic household needs and part of a spoonfeed culture that encourages helplessness and dependancy on the state. What would be good in this instant and what used to happen is that neighbours mutually help one another.
Lynn Sawyer
Target both
23.08.2010 21:12
Richard
e-mail: richard-brennan@hotmail.co.uk
Homepage: http://brennybaby.blogspot.com