Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 11:58:06 GMT
On a lighter note, who do we expect to be the Michael Portillo of this election? As much as I would love to see Uxbridge unseat BJ, I suspect he will hang on but Swinson, IDS, Flint and Steve Baker are vulnerable. Apparantly Labour are throwing the kitchen sink at Baker' and IDS' constituencies. Swinson the most deserving recipient of the Portillo award imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 11:59:51 GMT
As usual Nobby you apply a simplistic interpretation with your "Outraged of Tonbridge Wells" face on. What has Corbyn got to do with a comment on Johnson? The exact same comment applies (that I made.) to him. The fact remains that the majority who reside in the centre ground of politics do not support Johnson. Neither do we, to keep it simple for you, support Corbyn.
It's like the (now) old Brexit analogy, "Not all people who voted leave were racist, but most certainly all racists voted leave" In the case of Johnson, a man who has made racist, homophobic and frankly disgusting comments on child sex abuse police enquiries, it's hard to believe anyone could see past that and vote for him. Its unbelievable. Yet, we (the centre) hear you say, "what about (the good old "whataboutery") Corbyn? He supported Palestinians and the Catholic Nationalists in NI" Is that really an argument in defense of Johnson? Notwithstanding Corbyns six form vocabulary in voicing that support. Words repeated ad nauseam in the usual trash newspapers. Really, you want to defend all that? Good to hear that you speak for the majority in the country. How come you're always on the losing side? Such sublime logic and rhetoric Facts or truth anyone??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:24:44 GMT
No of course not. In the course of my work assessing income protection claims we come across plenty of individuals who are fit for work but choose not to for fairly lame reasons. It’s a frustrating business as you can help a really driven individual get back to work after a serious accident or once they completed their chemotherapy treatment and on the flip side you have people with very little wrong resisting every effort to get them back to work. These individuals are also claiming state benefit. You can look at every regional newspaper in the country and there will be multiple cases every day of people cheating the benefit system and very rarely does it ever get paid back. I don’t believe anyone at DWP carries out in depth analysis of what someone on benefits spend their money on. I’ve said before that state benefit (excluding pension) should be paid by a voucher system only redeemable only on essential goods. So to stop the one with a lame reason you will be making it harder for the one on chemo? Multiple cases every day in every local paper? Quite an assertion, but exaggeration for effect I presume. As for vouchers, that is quite a stigma to attach to people you want to help in order to prevent an unknown number who you feel abuse the system. Keep a tally this week of cases you feel are fraudulent and genuine. Let us know. The point regarding someone working after a serious condition and subsequent treatment versus someone with a lame excuse is to highlight the frustration of some people’s work ethic and attitude. I’ve seen many instances where people return to work even if terminal or work their hours around treatment - quite inspirational really. You compare that to other cases I see where, for example, people stay off work claiming to be clinically depressed following a poor appraisal at work and then fight tooth and nail to ever avoid working again. Our cancer claims (and other serious clinical conditions) are usually accepted within a week with little medical evidence required - those with more dubious reasons for absence will face far more scrutiny such as nurse home visits, independent Consultant examination or occasionally surveillance. Anyway, don’t want to prattle on and bore people about insurance. I only referenced it in the first place to explain differences in attitudes from people with illness. I don’t propose to spend my whole week scanning newspapers collating information on benefit fraud numbers. I see Nobby has posted an example and it just gets knocked back as rare so it doesn’t matter! Left wing papers and media outlets choose not to report benefit fraud (or things like the scumbags falsely claiming Grenfell compensation)because they want to pretend these things don’t happen. Look elsewhere and in local news there are always reports of benefit frauds and conviction. Even more frustrating is the money never gets paid back, unless you count £1 per week payable over 500 years as a recovery. I can see the argument for being stigmatised by a voucher system but unfortunately hurting someone’s feelings should be far less a consideration than billions of taxpayer cash being used to purchase non essentials when benefits should be a last resort for those in short term need. If we had a benefit system that was trusted and you could have confidence that anyone in the supermarket queue in front of you with a voucher was genuinely going through hard times rather than making a lifestyle choice then I personally wouldn’t think anything less of them.
|
|
|
Post by yetigas on Dec 9, 2019 12:27:11 GMT
Out of interest, do you have any figures for those who you believe abuse the system? No of course not. In the course of my work assessing income protection claims we come across plenty of individuals who are fit for work but choose not to for fairly lame reasons. It’s a frustrating business as you can help a really driven individual get back to work after a serious accident or once they completed their chemotherapy treatment and on the flip side you have people with very little wrong resisting every effort to get them back to work. These individuals are also claiming state benefit. You can look at every regional newspaper in the country and there will be multiple cases every day of people cheating the benefit system and very rarely does it ever get paid back. I don’t believe anyone at DWP carries out in depth analysis of what someone on benefits spend their money on. I’ve said before that state benefit (excluding pension) should be paid by a voucher system only redeemable only on essential goods. Yet, there are also many people who cannot work due to their disability who are denied state benefits - I know some personally. No welfare system is perfect, but you can put lots of state resources chasing so-called scroungers, or put the same into chasing tax evaders. Better to put more resources going after the tax evaders where the returns are potentially much greater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:29:18 GMT
So to stop the one with a lame reason you will be making it harder for the one on chemo? Multiple cases every day in every local paper? Quite an assertion, but exaggeration for effect I presume. As for vouchers, that is quite a stigma to attach to people you want to help in order to prevent an unknown number who you feel abuse the system. Keep a tally this week of cases you feel are fraudulent and genuine. Let us know. The point regarding someone working after a serious condition and subsequent treatment versus someone with a lame excuse is to highlight the frustration of some people’s work ethic and attitude. I’ve seen many instances where people return to work even if terminal or work their hours around treatment - quite inspirational really. You compare that to other cases I see where, for example, people stay off work claiming to be clinically depressed following a poor appraisal at work and then fight tooth and nail to ever avoid working again. Our cancer claims (and other serious clinical conditions) are usually accepted within a week with little medical evidence required - those with more dubious reasons for absence will face far more scrutiny such as nurse home visits, independent Consultant examination or occasionally surveillance. Anyway, don’t want to prattle on and bore people about insurance. I only referenced it in the first place to explain differences in attitudes from people with illness. I don’t propose to spend my whole week scanning newspapers collating information on benefit fraud numbers. I see Nobby has posted an example and it just gets knocked back as rare so it doesn’t matter! Left wing papers and media outlets choose not to report benefit fraud (or things like the scumbags falsely claiming Grenfell compensation)because they want to pretend these things don’t happen. Look elsewhere and in local news there are always reports of benefit frauds and conviction. Even more frustrating is the money never gets paid back, unless you count £1 per week payable over 500 years as a recovery. I can see the argument for being stigmatised by a voucher system but unfortunately hurting someone’s feelings should be far less a consideration than billions of taxpayer cash being used to purchase non essentials when benefits should be a last resort for those in short term need. If we had a benefit system that was trusted and you could have confidence that anyone in the supermarket queue in front of you with a voucher was genuinely going through hard times rather than making a lifestyle choice then I personally wouldn’t think anything less of them. If anyone could distill a single empirical piece of evidence to support Eric's stance from this diatribe, do me a favour and PM me. It reads like the ramblings of a confused mind to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:30:13 GMT
No of course not. In the course of my work assessing income protection claims we come across plenty of individuals who are fit for work but choose not to for fairly lame reasons. It’s a frustrating business as you can help a really driven individual get back to work after a serious accident or once they completed their chemotherapy treatment and on the flip side you have people with very little wrong resisting every effort to get them back to work. These individuals are also claiming state benefit. You can look at every regional newspaper in the country and there will be multiple cases every day of people cheating the benefit system and very rarely does it ever get paid back. I don’t believe anyone at DWP carries out in depth analysis of what someone on benefits spend their money on. I’ve said before that state benefit (excluding pension) should be paid by a voucher system only redeemable only on essential goods. Yet, there are also many people who cannot work due to their disability who are denied state benefits - I know some personally. No welfare system is perfect, but you can put lots of state resources chasing so-called scroungers, or put the same into chasing tax evaders. Better to put more resources going after the tax evaders where the returns are potentially much greater. Oooh, logic. Love it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:37:47 GMT
Sadly, I think this is probably close to the truth. After winning a large majority the Tories will "Among other things they will; preside over a protracted post-Brexit recession; a collapse in sterling; starve local services and the welfare state of funding when the comprehensive spending review comes round; fail to conclude a trade deal with the EU in time; fail to negotiate an advantageous trade deal with anyone else including (especially) Trump’s protectionist America by 2024; dismantle the constitutional checks and balances supplied by the Commons and the courts, as per page 48 of the Tory manifesto; shut down Channel 4; neuter the BBC; cut taxes for the rich; pack the House of Lords with more Tories and appoint placemen and placewomen to top jobs in the civil service, diplomatic corps, Bank of England and quangos; privatise anything not specifically ruled out by their manifesto." Full article here This isn’t the unpredictable election we all want it to be – the Tories have already won flip.it/i70b8n
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Dec 9, 2019 12:39:48 GMT
Putting Boris Johnson's plan for Brexit into action will be a "major" challenge for government due to new customs arrangements for Northern Ireland, according to a leaked document.
The PM has said the UK will fully exit the EU by December 2020 if he wins the election and MPs approve his plan.
But the document says government will struggle to deliver the infrastructure and staffing needed by that deadline.
The PM did not directly comment on the report when asked.
But Mr Johnson instead said his plan was a "great deal" for both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and would "give the country real momentum".
◾LIVE: Latest from the campaign trail ◾General election 2019: A matter of mistrust?
The SNP said the leak was "just the latest evidence that Boris Johnson can't be trusted".
It comes as the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Arlene Foster, said Mr Johnson "broke [his] word" after promising there would be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland after Brexit - a red line for her and her candidates.
Throughout the election campaign, the PM has denied there will be checks in the Irish Sea, despite telling the BBC in the days after his deal was agreed that some checks would be needed.
Mr Johnson's deal with the EU does mean there will be checks on goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland but there has been confusion on whether there will be checks on goods going in the other direction. ◾Will there be checks between Great Britain and NI? ◾What is in Boris Johnson's new Brexit deal?
Mr Johnson has pledged to finalise leaving the EU by 31 January, and said a trade deal will be done with the bloc by the following December.
However, he has also said if no deal is done by that deadline, the UK will still leave - meaning all transition agreements will come to an end by the close of 2020.
First reported by the Financial Times, the document from the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) has cast doubt on whether the government will be ready to meet this proposal when it comes to new arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The BBC has also seen the document - which was circulated to senior officials in Whitehall last week - that warns of "high levels of checks and controls" as a result of the deal, and says there may be "legal and political" impacts.
It reads: "Delivery of the required infrastructure, associated systems, and staffing to implement the requirements of the protocol by December 2020 represents a major strategic, political and operational challenge."
DExEU said it would not comment on leaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:47:48 GMT
No of course not. In the course of my work assessing income protection claims we come across plenty of individuals who are fit for work but choose not to for fairly lame reasons. It’s a frustrating business as you can help a really driven individual get back to work after a serious accident or once they completed their chemotherapy treatment and on the flip side you have people with very little wrong resisting every effort to get them back to work. These individuals are also claiming state benefit. You can look at every regional newspaper in the country and there will be multiple cases every day of people cheating the benefit system and very rarely does it ever get paid back. I don’t believe anyone at DWP carries out in depth analysis of what someone on benefits spend their money on. I’ve said before that state benefit (excluding pension) should be paid by a voucher system only redeemable only on essential goods. Yet, there are also many people who cannot work due to their disability who are denied state benefits - I know some personally. No welfare system is perfect, but you can put lots of state resources chasing so-called scroungers, or put the same into chasing tax evaders. Better to put more resources going after the tax evaders where the returns are potentially much greater. Interesting point. There are scroungers taking the water at both ends of the spectrum. And agreed, I can sort of see Eric’s complaints (in a previous life I was one of the people doing surveillance for insurance companies on claimants so I know how people can game the system- got some funny stories from those days) but as you say no welfare system is perfect. There has to be a certain acceptance of that in the same way that the justice system is not perfect and in order for it to operate successfully you have to accept that in order to protect the not guilty there will be guilty people who walk the streets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:49:01 GMT
Putting Boris Johnson's plan for Brexit into action will be a "major" challenge for government due to new customs arrangements for Northern Ireland, according to a leaked document. The PM has said the UK will fully exit the EU by December 2020 if he wins the election and MPs approve his plan. But the document says government will struggle to deliver the infrastructure and staffing needed by that deadline. The PM did not directly comment on the report when asked. But Mr Johnson instead said his plan was a "great deal" for both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and would "give the country real momentum". ◾LIVE: Latest from the campaign trail ◾General election 2019: A matter of mistrust? The SNP said the leak was "just the latest evidence that Boris Johnson can't be trusted". It comes as the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Arlene Foster, said Mr Johnson "broke [his] word" after promising there would be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland after Brexit - a red line for her and her candidates. Throughout the election campaign, the PM has denied there will be checks in the Irish Sea, despite telling the BBC in the days after his deal was agreed that some checks would be needed. Mr Johnson's deal with the EU does mean there will be checks on goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland but there has been confusion on whether there will be checks on goods going in the other direction. ◾Will there be checks between Great Britain and NI? ◾What is in Boris Johnson's new Brexit deal? Mr Johnson has pledged to finalise leaving the EU by 31 January, and said a trade deal will be done with the bloc by the following December. However, he has also said if no deal is done by that deadline, the UK will still leave - meaning all transition agreements will come to an end by the close of 2020. First reported by the Financial Times, the document from the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) has cast doubt on whether the government will be ready to meet this proposal when it comes to new arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The BBC has also seen the document - which was circulated to senior officials in Whitehall last week - that warns of "high levels of checks and controls" as a result of the deal, and says there may be "legal and political" impacts. It reads: "Delivery of the required infrastructure, associated systems, and staffing to implement the requirements of the protocol by December 2020 represents a major strategic, political and operational challenge." DExEU said it would not comment on leaks. Getting the excuses in early ready for the “shock” no deal, I see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 12:54:38 GMT
Sadly, I think this is probably close to the truth. After winning a large majority the Tories will "Among other things they will; preside over a protracted post-Brexit recession; a collapse in sterling; starve local services and the welfare state of funding when the comprehensive spending review comes round; fail to conclude a trade deal with the EU in time; fail to negotiate an advantageous trade deal with anyone else including (especially) Trump’s protectionist America by 2024; dismantle the constitutional checks and balances supplied by the Commons and the courts, as per page 48 of the Tory manifesto; shut down Channel 4; neuter the BBC; cut taxes for the rich; pack the House of Lords with more Tories and appoint placemen and placewomen to top jobs in the civil service, diplomatic corps, Bank of England and quangos; privatise anything not specifically ruled out by their manifesto." Full article here This isn’t the unpredictable election we all want it to be – the Tories have already won flip.it/i70b8nAnd now for some good news: If even an nth of that prediction comes true it will pretty much end the Tory party. People won’t forget a f**ked up Brexit for generations and after 10 years already of their rule there won’t be a Labour Party to pin the blame on either. Any wrecking of the economy and further degradation of public services will be entirely down to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:02:31 GMT
No of course not. In the course of my work assessing income protection claims we come across plenty of individuals who are fit for work but choose not to for fairly lame reasons. It’s a frustrating business as you can help a really driven individual get back to work after a serious accident or once they completed their chemotherapy treatment and on the flip side you have people with very little wrong resisting every effort to get them back to work. These individuals are also claiming state benefit. You can look at every regional newspaper in the country and there will be multiple cases every day of people cheating the benefit system and very rarely does it ever get paid back. I don’t believe anyone at DWP carries out in depth analysis of what someone on benefits spend their money on. I’ve said before that state benefit (excluding pension) should be paid by a voucher system only redeemable only on essential goods. Yet, there are also many people who cannot work due to their disability who are denied state benefits - I know some personally. No welfare system is perfect, but you can put lots of state resources chasing so-called scroungers, or put the same into chasing tax evaders. Better to put more resources going after the tax evaders where the returns are potentially much greater. Does it come down to a simple choice of chasing one and not the other? If there was no investigation and pursuit of benefit crooks what do you think would happen? Obviously more people would try and obtain money for nothing. I’ve no idea what their exact budget is but HMRC are pretty notorious for investigating non payment of tax and won’t let you get away with it. If you’re talking about perfectly legal tax avoidance that is a different matter and is for the politicians to sort out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:06:52 GMT
Sadly, I think this is probably close to the truth. After winning a large majority the Tories will "Among other things they will; preside over a protracted post-Brexit recession; a collapse in sterling; starve local services and the welfare state of funding when the comprehensive spending review comes round; fail to conclude a trade deal with the EU in time; fail to negotiate an advantageous trade deal with anyone else including (especially) Trump’s protectionist America by 2024; dismantle the constitutional checks and balances supplied by the Commons and the courts, as per page 48 of the Tory manifesto; shut down Channel 4; neuter the BBC; cut taxes for the rich; pack the House of Lords with more Tories and appoint placemen and placewomen to top jobs in the civil service, diplomatic corps, Bank of England and quangos; privatise anything not specifically ruled out by their manifesto." Full article here This isn’t the unpredictable election we all want it to be – the Tories have already won flip.it/i70b8nDidn't you call for 'facts and truth' a couple of posts back?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:11:42 GMT
Sadly, I think this is probably close to the truth. After winning a large majority the Tories will "Among other things they will; preside over a protracted post-Brexit recession; a collapse in sterling; starve local services and the welfare state of funding when the comprehensive spending review comes round; fail to conclude a trade deal with the EU in time; fail to negotiate an advantageous trade deal with anyone else including (especially) Trump’s protectionist America by 2024; dismantle the constitutional checks and balances supplied by the Commons and the courts, as per page 48 of the Tory manifesto; shut down Channel 4; neuter the BBC; cut taxes for the rich; pack the House of Lords with more Tories and appoint placemen and placewomen to top jobs in the civil service, diplomatic corps, Bank of England and quangos; privatise anything not specifically ruled out by their manifesto." Full article here This isn’t the unpredictable election we all want it to be – the Tories have already won flip.it/i70b8nAnd now for some good news: If even an nth of that prediction comes true it will pretty much end the Tory party. People won’t forget a f**ked up Brexit for generations and after 10 years already of their rule there won’t be a Labour Party to pin the blame on either. Any wrecking of the economy and further degradation of public services will be entirely down to them. Even better news: If Brexit is a success, the economy doesn't crumble and the UK prospers, then we may never see the Labour Party in government again ! Every cloud and all that eh !
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Dec 9, 2019 13:13:03 GMT
And now for some good news: If even an nth of that prediction comes true it will pretty much end the Tory party. People won’t forget a f**ked up Brexit for generations and after 10 years already of their rule there won’t be a Labour Party to pin the blame on either. Any wrecking of the economy and further degradation of public services will be entirely down to them. Even better news: If Brexit is a success, the economy doesn't crumble and the UK prospers, then we may never see the Labour Party in government again ! Every cloud and all that eh ! I actually laughed out loud at this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:19:13 GMT
Putting Boris Johnson's plan for Brexit into action will be a "major" challenge for government due to new customs arrangements for Northern Ireland, according to a leaked document. The PM has said the UK will fully exit the EU by December 2020 if he wins the election and MPs approve his plan. But the document says government will struggle to deliver the infrastructure and staffing needed by that deadline. The PM did not directly comment on the report when asked. But Mr Johnson instead said his plan was a "great deal" for both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and would "give the country real momentum". ◾LIVE: Latest from the campaign trail ◾General election 2019: A matter of mistrust? The SNP said the leak was "just the latest evidence that Boris Johnson can't be trusted". It comes as the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Arlene Foster, said Mr Johnson "broke [his] word" after promising there would be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland after Brexit - a red line for her and her candidates. Throughout the election campaign, the PM has denied there will be checks in the Irish Sea, despite telling the BBC in the days after his deal was agreed that some checks would be needed. Mr Johnson's deal with the EU does mean there will be checks on goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland but there has been confusion on whether there will be checks on goods going in the other direction. ◾Will there be checks between Great Britain and NI? ◾What is in Boris Johnson's new Brexit deal? Mr Johnson has pledged to finalise leaving the EU by 31 January, and said a trade deal will be done with the bloc by the following December. However, he has also said if no deal is done by that deadline, the UK will still leave - meaning all transition agreements will come to an end by the close of 2020. First reported by the Financial Times, the document from the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) has cast doubt on whether the government will be ready to meet this proposal when it comes to new arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The BBC has also seen the document - which was circulated to senior officials in Whitehall last week - that warns of "high levels of checks and controls" as a result of the deal, and says there may be "legal and political" impacts. It reads: "Delivery of the required infrastructure, associated systems, and staffing to implement the requirements of the protocol by December 2020 represents a major strategic, political and operational challenge." DExEU said it would not comment on leaks. Getting the excuses in early ready for the “shock” no deal, I see. The trade negotiations are obviously a two-way street. If the EU drag their heels and play hard-ball, then yes, the negotiations may well drag on. If that ends in no FTA then so be it. For the life of me I cannot see why countries like South Korea, Japan or Canada can have an FTA with the EU, but the UK can't. The only reason for that is if the EU play silly buggers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:21:21 GMT
Yet, there are also many people who cannot work due to their disability who are denied state benefits - I know some personally. No welfare system is perfect, but you can put lots of state resources chasing so-called scroungers, or put the same into chasing tax evaders. Better to put more resources going after the tax evaders where the returns are potentially much greater. Interesting point. There are scroungers taking the water at both ends of the spectrum. And agreed, I can sort of see Eric’s complaints (in a previous life I was one of the people doing surveillance for insurance companies on claimants so I know how people can game the system- got some funny stories from those days) but as you say no welfare system is perfect. There has to be a certain acceptance of that in the same way that the justice system is not perfect and in order for it to operate successfully you have to accept that in order to protect the not guilty there will be guilty people who walk the streets. What I don’t get is how people can be so unfazed when there are examples of what is little more than stealing the taxes we have paid. We all have a vested interest and should demand that our money is used wisely, making sure that those most deserving get what they need and that the overall pot of cash available as benefit is not reduced by despicable individuals out for a free lunch. The repercussions of benefit fraud needs to be very clear and offenders severely punished to send out a deterrent. The blasé attitude from the left is weird, are they so forgiving if someone hacks into their back account and steals their money or breaks into their house and takes their valuables? I’m sure you have some interesting tales from surveillance. Sounds a fun job but spending hours sat in a car watching a house when nobody moves must be so dull. We outsource to third parties and we’ve had a few interesting ones. We had a life insurance fraud which we had pursued by someone on our behalf and they tracked down the claimant alive and well in Central America, he was hid under the bed and recognised the investigator from when he tried a similar scam against a different insurer years before. He even shook his hand! Does get frustrating when guys like you get some good evidence and we stop a claim - we had one a few years ago where an individual with chronic fatigue was seen windsurfing for several hours on three consecutive days. The ombudsman says you have to reinstate his claim because we didn’t prove he could work at his desk. Might as well give up!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:25:16 GMT
Even better news: If Brexit is a success, the economy doesn't crumble and the UK prospers, then we may never see the Labour Party in government again ! Every cloud and all that eh ! I actually laughed out loud at this Admit it. You would be gutted if brexit was a great success and our economy flourished.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 14:06:50 GMT
Interesting point. There are scroungers taking the water at both ends of the spectrum. And agreed, I can sort of see Eric’s complaints (in a previous life I was one of the people doing surveillance for insurance companies on claimants so I know how people can game the system- got some funny stories from those days) but as you say no welfare system is perfect. There has to be a certain acceptance of that in the same way that the justice system is not perfect and in order for it to operate successfully you have to accept that in order to protect the not guilty there will be guilty people who walk the streets. What I don’t get is how people can be so unfazed when there are examples of what is little more than stealing the taxes we have paid. We all have a vested interest and should demand that our money is used wisely, making sure that those most deserving get what they need and that the overall pot of cash available as benefit is not reduced by despicable individuals out for a free lunch. The repercussions of benefit fraud needs to be very clear and offenders severely punished to send out a deterrent. The blasé attitude from the left is weird, are they so forgiving if someone hacks into their back account and steals their money or breaks into their house and takes their valuables? I’m sure you have some interesting tales from surveillance. Sounds a fun job but spending hours sat in a car watching a house when nobody moves must be so dull. We outsource to third parties and we’ve had a few interesting ones. We had a life insurance fraud which we had pursued by someone on our behalf and they tracked down the claimant alive and well in Central America, he was hid under the bed and recognised the investigator from when he tried a similar scam against a different insurer years before. He even shook his hand! Does get frustrating when guys like you get some good evidence and we stop a claim - we had one a few years ago where an individual with chronic fatigue was seen windsurfing for several hours on three consecutive days. The ombudsman says you have to reinstate his claim because we didn’t prove he could work at his desk. Might as well give up! I don’t think anyone is immune to abuse of the benefits system. But it’s probably not as important to most as other issues. With respect it’s probably the same for you- do you oppose tax evasion by the high earners as vigorously as you oppose benefit scrounging? From your posts I don’t get the impression that you do if that is the case. It’s classic left wing/right wing- left wingers think tax evasion is a bigger issue while the right wingers see abuse of the welfare state as the bigger issue. And of course what nobody talks about are the people who suffer under both scenarios, those who have to pay more tax to make up for those who have evaded it and those who have been unfairly stripped of benefits who are suffering because too much is being siphoned out. But in terms of priorities both of those issues are not considered a big deal when resources are need to tackle climate change, the NHS and lack of affordable housing and that’s just for starters. Just to add re: windsurfing, we had one where this guy said he couldn’t walk his dog and I had to lie in the back of a car outside his house under a pile of blankets on the back seat with a camera lens peeking up out of the side window. True enough, he came out of the house practically skipping down the road dragging the dog behind him, not a care in the world- it was amazing how he never suspected that he would get investigated! Unbelievable! There was another one where I had to observe a doctors surgery round Clifton/redland way and I had to find some cover on an open patch of public common opposite the doctors! I had no choice but to press up against a tree and then just as the subject turned up I hear a load of giggling behind me. I turn around and there is a pack of 30 French exchange students laughing at me and blowing my cover. Brilliant! Fun job though, wish I’d stuck with it in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Dec 9, 2019 14:46:29 GMT
I actually laughed out loud at this Admit it. You would be gutted if brexit was a great success and our economy flourished. I'd be very surprised!
|
|