|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 8, 2022 22:57:10 GMT
DWP I think. Not sure what benefits these people were claiming. The amount dies seem extraordinarily high. Unlikely though that DWP inspectors would ever visit someones home unless there was evidence of a problem. Seems first anyone knew of problem were when police called on an unrelated matter. Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. You sound like you long for the return of the Stasi. You fancy paying for them too. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 22:59:09 GMT
Couple who claimed £84,000-a-year benefits let children live in absolute squalor. A couple who neglected seven children and 36 dogs they kept in a filthy three-bed house while ‘frittering away’ £84,000 a year in benefits have been jailed. Christopher Bennett, 35, and Gemma Brogan, 41, were arrested after officers called to a domestic incident at their property in Eastbourne, Sussex, found the kids living in ‘shocking and repugnant’ conditions. They later told a court how they were met with a ‘stench of faeces and urine’ leaving them ‘unable to breathe normally’ as well as a ‘deafening’ din coming from the dozens of malnourished dogs barking and leaping around. metro.co.uk/2022/11/07/couple-on-84000-a-year-benefits-let-girl-sleep-covered-in-dog-poo-17714033/The fact that a couple can claim £84,000 a year, that's £7,000 a month in benefits is incredible. But the council quite obviously don't do any follow up checks. I would have thought if a council were shelling out so much in benefits, they may have an interest in how it's been spent, but clearly not. Had they been more diligent the children and dogs could have been rescued a damned sight sooner. From the newspaper story, neither Christopher Bennett or Gemma Brogan seemed to be the full ticket. And if you keep quiet the DSS or whatever it is called these days, don't have the resources to check up on every claimant. Whether they were the full ticket or not is another story I suppose. However, the thought that the council or DWP or DSS or whatever it's called, lacked resources to investigate, has not gone over my head. I suspect you're right. And with public services facing even more cuts I cant see the situation improving anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 23:05:39 GMT
Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. You sound like you long for the return of the Stasi. You fancy paying for them too. Stasi! BvL, I feel almost embarrassed to point it out, that the Stasi can hardly return to a country they have never been to. Buck your ideas up there's a good chap. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 8, 2022 23:38:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2022 10:39:57 GMT
You sound like you long for the return of the Stasi. You fancy paying for them too. Stasi! BvL, I feel almost embarrassed to point it out, that the Stasi can hardly return to a country they have never been to. Buck your ideas up there's a good chap. They don't exist anywhere now. I was thinking you wanted to bring them back by setting them up here. It's quite possible for the Stasi to disappear from one county and get reinstated in another. After all we are now a soviet nation. I men you can't even listen to a pop music station without government propaganda interrupting it. Get the Stasi in to save your soul from the bogeyman eh? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 9, 2022 19:28:02 GMT
Couple who claimed £84,000-a-year benefits let children live in absolute squalor. A couple who neglected seven children and 36 dogs they kept in a filthy three-bed house while ‘frittering away’ £84,000 a year in benefits have been jailed. Christopher Bennett, 35, and Gemma Brogan, 41, were arrested after officers called to a domestic incident at their property in Eastbourne, Sussex, found the kids living in ‘shocking and repugnant’ conditions. They later told a court how they were met with a ‘stench of faeces and urine’ leaving them ‘unable to breathe normally’ as well as a ‘deafening’ din coming from the dozens of malnourished dogs barking and leaping around. metro.co.uk/2022/11/07/couple-on-84000-a-year-benefits-let-girl-sleep-covered-in-dog-poo-17714033/The fact that a couple can claim £84,000 a year, that's £7,000 a month in benefits is incredible. But the council quite obviously don't do any follow up checks. I would have thought if a council were shelling out so much in benefits, they may have an interest in how it's been spent, but clearly not. Had they been more diligent the children and dogs could have been rescued a damned sight sooner. If there had been no domestic incident they could have continued claiming such vast handouts (untaxed ) as it doesn't look like the DWP keep any check on those they give handouts to or what they spend it on despite the standard moaning about sanctions. Wonder just how many more are on such massive amounts of benefits - there doesn't seem to be any big surprise at the level so it could easily be lots . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 9, 2022 19:31:38 GMT
DWP I think. Not sure what benefits these people were claiming. The amount dies seem extraordinarily high. Unlikely though that DWP inspectors would ever visit someones home unless there was evidence of a problem. Seems first anyone knew of problem were when police called on an unrelated matter. Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. I agree it should be standard practice for DWP inspectors to make home visits to check on exactly how taxpayers money is being spent |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 9, 2022 20:02:12 GMT
Should we also check on how tax payers money being spent on them in public service jobs.
Has for the 85, 000 thats been proved nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 9, 2022 21:54:46 GMT
Did they receive £7,000 every month as the papers have interpreted the judge's comments or dis they get £7,000 in one month including paying of outstanding benefits?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 10, 2022 8:43:40 GMT
Both these morons were charged with seven counts of Child Neglect, to which they pleaded guilty on all counts, in order to charge them to put them before the Court in the first place a full detailed investigation was carried out by the Police, evidence gathered from the Paediatricians who assessed their physical and mental health and wellbeing of the children, photographs of the children, the squalor they were living in and what the arresting Officers saw in that filthy house etc.
What is obvious is that part of the investigation centred on the finances of the two adults what was their income, why did they not feed and clothe the children did they not have enough money care for them properly?
It is also obvious that another vital part of the evidence against them was provided by the Benefits Agency whatever they are called, they knew to the penny what they received no matter how little or how much, proved how much money they received every month, which would negate any attempt of a defence of we could not afford to look after them.
The Judge had all that in front of him in black and white before they pleaded guilty as charged, according to the press coverage the Judges stated in his summing up they received £84,000 a year to everyone in Court reporters included, why do you assume a reporter or reporters in Court interpreted it differently or wrongly or are you assuming the media are gilding the Lily, why would they ? the evidence was damming enough
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 10, 2022 9:48:53 GMT
Both these morons were charged with seven counts of Child Neglect, to which they pleaded guilty on all counts, in order to charge them to put them before the Court in the first place a full detailed investigation was carried out by the Police, evidence gathered from the Paediatricians who assessed their physical and mental health and wellbeing of the children, photographs of the children, the squalor they were living in and what the arresting Officers saw in that filthy house etc. What is obvious is that part of the investigation centred on the finances of the two adults what was their income, why did they not feed and clothe the children did they not have enough money care for them properly? It is also obvious that another vital part of the evidence against them was provided by the Benefits Agency whatever they are called, they knew to the penny what they received no matter how little or how much, proved how much money they received every month, which would negate any attempt of a defence of we could not afford to look after them. The Judge had all that in front of him in black and white before they pleaded guilty as charged, according to the press coverage the Judges stated in his summing up they received £84,000 a year to everyone in Court reporters included, why do you assume a reporter or reporters in Court interpreted it differently or wrongly or are you assuming the media are gilding the Lily, why would they ? the evidence was damming enough The actual quote of the judge is 'Judge Stephen Mooney told them: ‘You frittered away £7000-a-month which should have been spent on the children.' So he never said £84k a year We need to know more. IMHO they were fraudulently claiming exploiting that during lockdowns, inspections were curtailed Worth a read of this report on that point committees.parliament.uk/publications/31513/documents/176815/default/
'. The Department for Work & Pensions overpaid an eye-watering £8.6 billion in 2021–22, of which £6.5 billion was due to fraud. It maintains that current levels are still due to COVID-19 and the timing of its measurement exercise, but is unable to say when levels of fraud and error will fall.' |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 10, 2022 13:23:17 GMT
Did they receive £7,000 every month as the papers have interpreted the judge's comments or dis they get £7,000 in one month including paying of outstanding benefits? The link in the OP clearly states they frittered away £84,000 a year in benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 10, 2022 13:28:18 GMT
Should we also check on how tax payers money being spent on them in public service jobs. Has for the 85, 000 thats been proved nonsense. Meanwhile, back at the asylum. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 10, 2022 13:48:35 GMT
Both these morons were charged with seven counts of Child Neglect, to which they pleaded guilty on all counts, in order to charge them to put them before the Court in the first place a full detailed investigation was carried out by the Police, evidence gathered from the Paediatricians who assessed their physical and mental health and wellbeing of the children, photographs of the children, the squalor they were living in and what the arresting Officers saw in that filthy house etc. What is obvious is that part of the investigation centred on the finances of the two adults what was their income, why did they not feed and clothe the children did they not have enough money care for them properly? It is also obvious that another vital part of the evidence against them was provided by the Benefits Agency whatever they are called, they knew to the penny what they received no matter how little or how much, proved how much money they received every month, which would negate any attempt of a defence of we could not afford to look after them. The Judge had all that in front of him in black and white before they pleaded guilty as charged, according to the press coverage the Judges stated in his summing up they received £84,000 a year to everyone in Court reporters included, why do you assume a reporter or reporters in Court interpreted it differently or wrongly or are you assuming the media are gilding the Lily, why would they ? the evidence was damming enough The actual quote of the judge is 'Judge Stephen Mooney told them: ‘You frittered away £7000-a-month which should have been spent on the children.' So he never said £84k a year We need to know more. IMHO they were fraudulently claiming exploiting that during lockdowns, inspections were curtailed Worth a read of this report on that point committees.parliament.uk/publications/31513/documents/176815/default/
'. The Department for Work & Pensions overpaid an eye-watering £8.6 billion in 2021–22, of which £6.5 billion was due to fraud. It maintains that current levels are still due to COVID-19 and the timing of its measurement exercise, but is unable to say when levels of fraud and error will fall.'Steve all Investigations are based on a time-honoured simple principle that has worked for years and years based on these few words, Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, there is one word that is not even in a good Investigators vocabulary " Assumption" because they never ever assume anything, they double check everything what a suspect says under caution, and if need be, what the victims and witnesses say. You " Assumed " the Reporter interpreted the amount of benefits differently, the Judge when addressing the Court asked what the defendants frittered £7,000 a month on, well twelve times £7,000 equals £84,000 per year Where did the Judge get the figure " £7,000 per month from? from the Court Papers put together by the Police and CPS, who gave them that figure, the only place that held that information is the Benefits Agency who have their own Fraud Investigators Branch that has access to their Databases, if the Benefit Fraud Investigators had found any evidence to suspect fraud by these two Morons, they could have interviewed them and added additional charges to the Neglects Offences if the CPS and Court agreed For all we know if there is evidence to suggest Fraud the Benefit Fraud Investigators can deal with them separately if they wish. I don't anyone think needs to be told that that some people do make Fraudulent Claims for Benefits and steal many millions of pounds from the taxpayers year in year out, also that mistakes are made by the Benefit Agencies which also cost the taxpayers, it is common knowledge |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 10, 2022 23:41:01 GMT
Did they receive £7,000 every month as the papers have interpreted the judge's comments or dis they get £7,000 in one month including paying of outstanding benefits? The link in the OP clearly states they frittered away £84,000 a year in benefits. Because simpleton reporters just multiply the judge's comment by 12 knowing simpleton readers won't question it. But the fact is the judge did not say £84k a year and there is no other evidence beyond his comments |
|
