Forums Forums General Forums A - Z Lifestyle The Benefit Cheats / Cheaters

Welcome to the ranks of the Grammar Police, edd; unfortunately we're a dying breed and not welcome here, (more's the pity).

Just out of interest Grandpa George, in relation to your two statements I have highlighted, do you have the figures in support of your generalisation? I'm just wondering what percentages of the unemployed you would fit into each of these categories?

I don't think anybody would reasonably defend benefits cheats, unless possibly their actions were borne out of utter desperation, but bearing in mind the DWP's own figures are that only 2.1% of the benefits budget is lost to fraud & error (so a smaller % for fraud alone), I would just question your motives for making the inference that such actions are perhaps more widespread.

It is very easy to promote lazy stereotypes, and without trying to make this too personal, with respect, I suspect that it what you have sought to do here, for whatever reason.

I wouldn't trust any government department's figures as far as I could throw them. That figure is frankly unbelievable, bearing in mind the number of successful prosecutions for fraud. Also, bear in mind that many fraudsters go undetected so never appear in the figures.

Fair point I guess, but as you dispute these figures, what specific information do you have that leads you to believe they are so inaccurate?

I would be really interested to see which reliable source (i.e. not the Daily Mail) your information comes from?

I'd like to know what the big deal is with the daily mail.

Sick of the smart ass remarks about that website so comeon someone spill the beans please?

I have no sources, reliable or otherwise, to quote. My point is that, as long as it's acknowledged that some (or many) claimants cheat and are never detected, how can any figures, from whatever source, be accurate? There are too many cases of a government department coming up with a statistic which is later proved to be inaccurate, for me ever to trust them. I repeat; because we've no way of knowing how many benefit claims are fraudulent, the figure given must be inaccurate. We can never know the true figure but it must be greater, maybe by an order of magnitude, than the one quoted.

I believe it is incumbent on the accuser - i.e. in the context of this thread, those who would suggest that benefits fraud is rife, and should somehow be the starting point for the general consensus as to the validity of any given claim - to provide the evidence to back-up their standpoint.

You doubt the government statistics, which is entirely your prerogative, and absolutely fair enough, but come on, you need to back yourself up here with persuasive evidence to the contrary, or else you leave yourself open to an accusation of prejudice.

I personally find the "guilty until proven innocent" stance as offensive, and contrary to natural justice.




.... or few??? How many is many?

As the "accuser" in this context, I obviously I can't provide statistics for a quantity which is unknown. What I claim is that the figure provided by you, from the government department, is clearly inaccurate and therefore invalid. I have no evidence that abuse is rife, but I personally believe that it is. This discussion is clearly going nowhere and I have nothing more to offer.

As our 'neatral pensioner' pointed out 'benefit bashing' is rife, thus he decided to make a thread about it, to make it local- sadly, for him, it has not gone the way he has intended?

You have backtracked, made wild generalised statements with no supporting evidence atall and have shown your real intention. I get the impression that other readers can see this for themselves.....

Oh, nor been able or willing to answer the questions, aimed towards you??

I advise that you start at the beginning (of this thread, that you started) and make 'notes'- just incase you 'forget' again, Sausage.

What is your problem with me?
I had no intentions with this thread, I just said my piece and asked other members for their opinions on this. It has been a very interesting read.

This was the question at the beginning of the thread.......

Do Wiki members believe that benefits are too low and cause hardship or that they are too high and discourage work.

Don't think you have given us your opinion on this yet RUDEBOX.
My thoughts are, "those who can afford booze and cigarettes, surely can't be that bad off", Or are these the ones who are on the fiddle?

Sadly from the point of view of discussing things on Wiki, the point has already been made on several threads that if one dares to veer however slightly away from the left opinion or offer any sort of alternative then this appears to be a red rag to a bull.

I think the problem I have with your original post {& title}, and some of the subsequent stuff, is that there seemed to be an implicit intention to draw hostility to genuine benefits claimants, by using benefit cheats as the benchmark for addressing the question of whether the level of benefits is appropriate. That said, if that was not your intention, then fair enough, and I am happy to apologize if I have misinterpreted.

Leaving aside cheats for a moment, but there is a fundamental issue regarding the morality of taking even more away from people who despite their best intentions, are unable to work or unable to find work.

Benefit levels are set at a bare minimum to survive on, for example I think the current JSA(IB) rate is £71.00 per week for a single person. Now, although a jobless person may [currently] also receive additional benefit to cover their rent & council tax, they do have to fund every other aspect of their life, such as food, clothing, heating & lighting, and any other everyday expense out of the £71.00. I don't know about any other contributors to this thread, but I would suggest that is an almost impossible task to accomplish, and leaves nothing for "luxuries", such as any form of social life or consumer goods, such as TVs, computers etc. Of course, you could argue that a TV or a computer is desirable but not essential, but here's the thing - poverty is relative to the society in which an individual lives, and whilst in real terms, there are clearly people around the world in much more immediate poverty, nevertheless, in this country, in order to adequately function, and be accepted / successfully assimilate into society, I would argue that means of communication and receiving information could reasonably be considered as essential.

It is against this backdrop, where keeping one's head above water is a real struggle, that benefits rises below inflation (i.e. cuts), bedroom tax, changes to council tax benefits and other further demands on an already unmanageably low income are simply not justified. How can you take more away from somebody who already effectively has nothing, and not expect their to be serious repercussions?

Back to cheats, of course this is wrong and needs to be stamped out. However, what is not acceptable is to justify impossible cuts for the majority on the basis that some people are cheating. To do this, as this government is, in order to attempt to justify their ideological dismantling of the safety net that social reformers fought so hard over so many generations to put in place, is utter madness, and morally reprehensible. This country is potentially sleepwalking back to grinding poverty for many, and that is simply not acceptable. To use cheats in the argument is merely a smokescreen for something much more cynical and malevolent.

Ironically, the government is also hugely cutting back on front line services within the DWP, which includes fraud investigation, which sadly means that those who do cheat have less chance of being caught and facing the consequences of their dishonesty. None of this is the fault of genuine benefits claimants.

This thread is missing one more choice phrase and my buzzword bingo card will be complete!