BENEFITS AND VERY STRANGE FRIEND!!

Perish the thought, bluebell!

So there'll be no playing to the camera then?

the character in question in in the Channel 4 programme 'Skint' which I haven't seen and have no great desire to see. Apparently the 3D TV is being paid for in instalments, so it's not as if they're paying for it all in on lump sum. The article in the Mail is full of the most outrageous emotive language - but one expects that. And no, I'm not condoning the spending of money on a TV which would be better spent on nutritious food for this large family, but frankly it's none of my business.

Depends on your base figure AKA - 3 out of 4 wouldn't be but 3 out of hundreds of thousands would be

Perish the thought! But how can 'three' be exceptional?

Yes Aka I think I'd worked out he felt strongly about it - but the language used was a bit OTT and a slating of the whole benefit system. As Flick said, this is an exceptional case - three was a case recently of a dentist who cheated the NHS out of over £1 m but that wouldn't be a reason for damning the NHS dentistry system.

I think he felt very strongly about it and needed to vent his feelings. Just an observation, not pseudo psycho babble.

Tammy - I found the bile in your post really distressing. Scum is pretty strong language !

But surely this case was in the papers because it was exceptional, not because that is how all benefits claimants live. Many have been made homeless because of the bedroom tax. Lost jobs because it is impossible to get to work from the temporary accommodation they are now living in.

The fact of the matter is that in every walk of life and at every level of society there are those who, given the opportunity, will cheat, lie and defraud to get money they are not entitled to. It is just that the further up the greedy pole you go the more opportunities there are and the more lucrative they are.

tammy

BENIFIT SYSTEM!!Excuse the capitals I'm seething I've just read of a man???who is on benefits who can afford to spend £2500 on a t.v. even if I had the money I wouldn't waste it like that.It should be the same as it is in Spain you only get out what you put in.This is one of the reasons I left the uk,(note small caps,) it would appear that the bigger waste of space you are the more money the state will throw at you.To think i worked for 50 yrs and paid taxes to support such scum really p___s me off. Rant over///Tomorrow the sun will shine i'll go to my favourite bar a couple of glasses of vino tinto (which I couldn't afford to buy in the uk) unless I was on benefits !!and all will be well with the world.

I better not make any comment on this subject.

Celegram
Goose

You sound like lovely people, salt of the earth and anyone would cherish you as a friend but you know sometimes we have to let people who treat others so badly leave our lives.

Thank you, jane!

A good point about 'rationalisation' jane. I think we would all agree that tax fraud is much more serious than benefit fraud- and involves much much larger sums. But as whenim says, even so, BOTH need to be tackled, as fairly as possible. People constantly seem to 'excuse' benefit fraud as a counteraction of bankers bonuses and tax fraud/evasion - and people who do commit benefit fraud are constantly told that 'it's ok sort of' as it is smaller than t'other. People who do not really try to find work are told that 'it's sort of ok' because work is very hard to find ...etc.

The tragedy of British politics and society- where 2 extremes constantly 'fight' one another, instead of trying to find solutions. I am very glad I live in a country where people have to make decisions by concensus- working together, rather than the constant see-saw politics of the UK - where the vast majority of 'normal' people always get forgotten between those right/left extremes.

Nellie neither the satellite TV nor cleaning the moat is acceptable. At both ends of the social spectrum and in the middle there are too many people just thinking 'me, me, me'.
Fraudulent expenses, fraudulent insurance claims, fraudulent benefit cheats.
I don't know the answers but I do feel contempt for them - not that they care what other people think

Whenim Well said!

This taking advantage when you can of food banks, benefit systems, Tax avoidance sounds to me. just like the politicians with their expenses.

Whether they were falsely claimed or just playing the system. Surely our countries politicians should set a better example.

If those at upper end of the average income range and are don't need the extra money do it, no wonder those on much lower incomes who find it harder to get things to make life a little more bearable with a few treats also try it on.

Is it morally any worse for someone on benefits to spend some on a satellite television, than for a well paid politician to claim £1000s for cleaning out moats in his families hereditary pile. Or buying posh duck houses?

Never mind the multinational companies avoiding tax.

One billion pounds fraudulently claimed in benefits is bad and needs addressing. 17 billion pounds of tax avoidance pales that amount into insignificance, but BOTH need dealing with.

But it's no good sticking our head in the sand. As Ana has said no one wants the truly needy to go without and I don't expect there is anyone on this forum who would let people starve or suffer.
There is blatant abuse of the benefit system. No doubt about this and yes, it is quite widespread. When I was working I saw this all the time,
What we need to remember is that every work-shy scrounger is taking money from those who are in genuine need and leaving less in the pot for others.

Well sad janeainsworth. Just because they can, doesn't mean they do! It's been shown time and again that benefits are not claimed by many people who are entitled to claim them, and many employees who are randomly audited have not bothered to claim expenses they are entitled to.

I know from approving expenses claims that the many employees don't claim out of pocket expenses far outnumber the ones who try to fiddle them.

I didn't see the Nick Ross programme that Petra refers to, but I don't think that just because there is more opportunity to commit fraud, it follows that more people will do so. Other factors have to be present.
In the business world the phenomenon of the 'Fraud Triangle' is well accepted - the idea that for an employee to commit fraud, 3 things have to be present. These are opportunity, motivation, and rationalisation.
Translating these ideas to benefit fraud, opportunity is increased if probity checks are not carried out cost-effectively.
Motivation is obvious, if the benefits to which someone is entitled do not allow them to cover their basic needs.
Rationalisation is the interesting one. This is the idea that someone who is basically honest (as I think the vast majority of people are) can convince him or herself that it is ok on this particular occasion to be dishonest for some reason - in the workplace this may be, for example, that the employer does not appreciate the employee's efforts and they deserve rather more in the way of reward than they are receiving.
Someone may decide for many reasons that it is ok to commit benefit fraud, but I think the materialistic culture we live in, exemplified on the Birthday Party thread, is one of the factors. Advertising and popular culture lead to an expectation among some people that benefits should not provide simply a roof over one's head, warm clothes and enough to eat, but holidays, smart phones, Sky television and designer trainers.
It may be possible to reduce the opportunity for fraud, but reducing rationalisation is far more difficult.
However, I continue to believe that only a very small minority of benefit claims are fraudulent, and while some politicians live like kings and professional people bring the country to its knees through their greed, there is little hope that much will change.

Yes indeed! No one would want people in need to go without - but if just anyone can turn up and help themselves....

Some food banks require a referral and organisations like the CAB can do this. Other food banks welcome all comers which could be a mistake.

FlicketyB the Food Bank here is run by a group of local churches, so I reckon what you say about agency checks is right

Yes, I thought you had to be referred to a Food Bank by an outside agency, not just turn up and be given food. I also thought that they did not give regular parcels but only in emergencies to tide people over. Of course there are a lot of different organisations running food banks and may be some local groups running them do not do the kind of checks that the big national charities do.