|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 12, 2022 7:08:22 GMT
From today’s Times: “Criminal gangs are driving record levels of benefit fraud and £8.5 billion was overpaid last year. In one scam, four [Somali Ed.] people invented 188 children and exploited the benefits system to make claims totalling more than £1.7 million. Five suspected gang members in Birmingham and London [Ethnicity not reported but we can guess Ed.] are accused of making fraudulent universal credit claims worth £4 million in another case, which is working its way through the courts. Two Polish sisters were found to be part of another gang that frequently opened benefits accounts in the names of other Poles to steal £300,000.” www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gang-invented-188-children-and-used-them-in-1-7m-benefit-scam-kdmqm8d9kPuts the £7K per month into some sort of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 11:09:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 12, 2022 11:53:16 GMT
State benefits are paid into bank/building society account Not cash hand outs. And I can't understand how benefits agency can claim so much fraudulent claims are made has you don't make fresh claims for state cost of living payment has there automatically credited to your account. And you had to be in reseat of benefits for 12 month before you receive Col payment Straight into a bank account doesn't mean that a) they can't draw it all out in cash or b) their spending can be monitored or restricted. A preloaded debit type card with no access to cash would mean that spending can monitored or restricted if it's seen to being used for fags, booze and Corals instead of ''safety net'' essentials |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 12:46:55 GMT
In this case the large benefits the so-called Mother Brogan she received from the taxpayers went straight into her bank account, which meant she was able to withdraw cash from her account as and when she wanted
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 14:06:49 GMT
Of FFS it does not matter if the Judge was stark naked quoting Shakespeare backwards and juggling four live Ferrets all at the same time, he was in the process of passing sentence on two arseholes both charged with 7 Counts of Child Neglect, they were not charged with any other offences and certainly not any offences related in any shape of form that had anything to do with Benefits they received either lawfully or unlawfully. Quite but Red's thread title and posts says he wants to pretend anyone can get £84k a year (when the benefit cap for most is £20k) I did try and give you some advice to stop making a fool of yourself, but as you insist on continuing in doing so and digging the hole you have already dug even deeper, I will respond knowing it's a waste of time you may struggle to understand it. Firstly Red's title to the thread as shown above is a question not a statement nor is he pretending anything, that is you warped logic at work yet again, he does not understand the Benefits System as he has never ever claimed Benefits, nor do I as I have never claimed Benefits, all I know we got Child Benefits when our kids were born. His opening thread in relation to this one particular what others may or may not get is immaterial he focused on just this case of gross neglect of those children and the amount of money given to the mother Brogan every month, which according to the case papers presented to the Judge came to £7,000 every month. In today's Mail which you will probably reject out of hand because facts may scare you is a large article about this case, no other this Court case, the mother was provided with a brand-new people carrier taxed, insured and maintained at the taxpayers' expense allegedly to carry the kids, according to neighbours the kids were rarely seen in it. All the kids had issues, learning difficulties and physical issues the eldest child could not read one when she was actually given food ate with the hands, she could not sit as a table therefore had never been taught how to use a knife and fork, all were malnourished, did not know how to wash themselves and living in filth with numerous dogs, I would not care if she had been given £10 grand a month if the kids had been well looked after, but they were not,. You didn't even have the intelligence to understand why the sentencing Judge asked a simple question, when he asked what the £7,000 a month had been spent on, why did he ask it ? for the simple reason the Police Investigation and medical reports on the children's physical and mental state was in the Case File compelling evidence in relation long term child abuse and neglect which he had read, he knew it had not been spent on the children, part of that money was Carers Allowance which is £154 per week for each child under the age of 16 years, which she did not do. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 12, 2022 16:18:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 12, 2022 17:00:35 GMT
Quite but Red's thread title and posts says he wants to pretend anyone can get £84k a year (when the benefit cap for most is £20k) I did try and give you some advice to stop making a fool of yourself, but as you insist on continuing in doing so and digging the hole you have already dug even deeper, I will respond knowing it's a waste of time you may struggle to understand it. Firstly Red's title to the thread as shown above is a question not a statement nor is he pretending anything, that is you warped logic at work yet again, he does not understand the Benefits System as he has never ever claimed Benefits, nor do I as I have never claimed Benefits, all I know we got Child Benefits when our kids were born. His opening thread in relation to this one particular what others may or may not get is immaterial he focused on just this case of gross neglect of those children and the amount of money given to the mother Brogan every month, which according to the case papers presented to the Judge came to £7,000 every month. In today's Mail which you will probably reject out of hand because facts may scare you is a large article about this case, no other this Court case, the mother was provided with a brand-new people carrier taxed, insured and maintained at the taxpayers' expense allegedly to carry the kids, according to neighbours the kids were rarely seen in it. All the kids had issues, learning difficulties and physical issues the eldest child could not read one when she was actually given food ate with the hands, she could not sit as a table therefore had never been taught how to use a knife and fork, all were malnourished, did not know how to wash themselves and living in filth with numerous dogs, I would not care if she had been given £10 grand a month if the kids had been well looked after, but they were not,. You didn't even have the intelligence to understand why the sentencing Judge asked a simple question, when he asked what the £7,000 a month had been spent on, why did he ask it ? for the simple reason the Police Investigation and medical reports on the children's physical and mental state was in the Case File compelling evidence in relation long term child abuse and neglect which he had read, he knew it had not been spent on the children, part of that money was Carers Allowance which is £154 per week for each child under the age of 16 years, which she did not do. Excellent post Handyman. You have the patience of a saint. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 17:06:25 GMT
As I stated I know nothing about Benefits at all never claimed any, therefore I cannot challenge what the journalists write, it matters not the figure of £7,000 a month was part of the Police Investigation to prove that the mother was in receipt of enough funds to look after the children, as I have stated before the Police would have had to ask the providers of the Benefits for that information in order to inform the Court of how much |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 12, 2022 17:12:01 GMT
I did try and give you some advice to stop making a fool of yourself, but as you insist on continuing in doing so and digging the hole you have already dug even deeper, I will respond knowing it's a waste of time you may struggle to understand it. Firstly Red's title to the thread as shown above is a question not a statement nor is he pretending anything, that is you warped logic at work yet again, he does not understand the Benefits System as he has never ever claimed Benefits, nor do I as I have never claimed Benefits, all I know we got Child Benefits when our kids were born. His opening thread in relation to this one particular what others may or may not get is immaterial he focused on just this case of gross neglect of those children and the amount of money given to the mother Brogan every month, which according to the case papers presented to the Judge came to £7,000 every month. In today's Mail which you will probably reject out of hand because facts may scare you is a large article about this case, no other this Court case, the mother was provided with a brand-new people carrier taxed, insured and maintained at the taxpayers' expense allegedly to carry the kids, according to neighbours the kids were rarely seen in it. All the kids had issues, learning difficulties and physical issues the eldest child could not read one when she was actually given food ate with the hands, she could not sit as a table therefore had never been taught how to use a knife and fork, all were malnourished, did not know how to wash themselves and living in filth with numerous dogs, I would not care if she had been given £10 grand a month if the kids had been well looked after, but they were not,. You didn't even have the intelligence to understand why the sentencing Judge asked a simple question, when he asked what the £7,000 a month had been spent on, why did he ask it ? for the simple reason the Police Investigation and medical reports on the children's physical and mental state was in the Case File compelling evidence in relation long term child abuse and neglect which he had read, he knew it had not been spent on the children, part of that money was Carers Allowance which is £154 per week for each child under the age of 16 years, which she did not do. Excellent post Handyman. You have the patience of a saint. Thank You I was having a nice cup of coffee and relaxing, so I did it to while away a little time whilst listening to some music, |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 12, 2022 17:25:34 GMT
What is extremely telling is that the vast majority of comments on this story are focussed on the amount of benefits theses people were getting and the failings of checks and balances to prevent it, while little thought or concern seems to shown for the 7 children and how it was possible that they've been allowed to suffer for so long without checks and balances to prevent it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 12, 2022 17:30:50 GMT
What is extremely telling is that the vast majority of comments on this story are focussed on the amount of benefits theses people were getting and the failings of checks and balances to prevent it, while little thought or concern seems to shown for the 7 children and how it was possible that they've been allowed to suffer for so long without checks and balances to prevent it. To be fair, the thread is about how easy it is to claim benefits . Not how easy it is to allow children to make your children suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 17:52:04 GMT
Quite but Red's thread title and posts says he wants to pretend anyone can get £84k a year (when the benefit cap for most is £20k) I did try and give you some advice to stop making a fool of yourself, but as you insist on continuing in doing so and digging the hole you have already dug even deeper, I will respond knowing it's a waste of time you may struggle to understand it. Firstly Red's title to the thread as shown above is a question not a statement nor is he pretending anything, that is you warped logic at work yet again, he does not understand the Benefits System as he has never ever claimed Benefits, nor do I as I have never claimed Benefits, all I know we got Child Benefits when our kids were born. His opening thread in relation to this one particular what others may or may not get is immaterial he focused on just this case of gross neglect of those children and the amount of money given to the mother Brogan every month, which according to the case papers presented to the Judge came to £7,000 every month. In today's Mail which you will probably reject out of hand because facts may scare you is a large article about this case, no other this Court case, the mother was provided with a brand-new people carrier taxed, insured and maintained at the taxpayers' expense allegedly to carry the kids, according to neighbours the kids were rarely seen in it. All the kids had issues, learning difficulties and physical issues the eldest child could not read one when she was actually given food ate with the hands, she could not sit as a table therefore had never been taught how to use a knife and fork, all were malnourished, did not know how to wash themselves and living in filth with numerous dogs, I would not care if she had been given £10 grand a month if the kids had been well looked after, but they were not,. You didn't even have the intelligence to understand why the sentencing Judge asked a simple question, when he asked what the £7,000 a month had been spent on, why did he ask it ? for the simple reason the Police Investigation and medical reports on the children's physical and mental state was in the Case File compelling evidence in relation long term child abuse and neglect which he had read, he knew it had not been spent on the children, part of that money was Carers Allowance which is £154 per week for each child under the age of 16 years, which she did not do. In your rush to throw abuse (it's what you do) and pretend that Red's Op was really all about the neglect seems you didn't (couldn't?) actually read it. He clearly posted a thread title of 'Just how difficult can it be to claim benefits?' and included this '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 note you couldn't be arsed to actually give a link to this Daily Mail article. You don't really do debate do you. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 17:54:46 GMT
So here's an interesting piece of data - and I withdraw my claim that this must have been fraud It seems there are a whole raft of exemption categories from the benefits cap and they should be urgently reviewed www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/when-youre-not-affected'When you're not affected You’re not affected by the cap if you’re over State Pension age. If you’re part of a couple and one of you is under State Pension age, the cap may apply.You’re not affected by the cap if you or your partner:- get Working Tax Credit (even if the amount you get is £0)
- get Universal Credit because of a disability or health condition that stops you from working (this is called ‘limited capability for work and work-related activity’)
- get Universal Credit because you care for someone with a disability
- get Universal Credit and you and your partner earn £658 or more a month combined, after tax and National Insurance contributions
You’re also not affected by the cap if you, your partner or any children under 18 living with you gets:- Adult Disability Payment (ADP)
- Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
- Armed Forces Independence Payment
- Attendance Allowance
- Carer’s Allowance
- Child Disability Payment
- Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
- Employment and Support Allowance (if you get the support component)
- Guardian’s Allowance
- Industrial Injuries Benefits (and equivalent payments as part of a War Disablement Pension or the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme)
- Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
- War pensions
- War Widow’s or War Widower’s Pension'
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 12, 2022 18:19:03 GMT
As I stated I know nothing about Benefits at all never claimed any, therefore I cannot challenge what the journalists write, it matters not the figure of £7,000 a month was part of the Police Investigation to prove that the mother was in receipt of enough funds to look after the children, as I have stated before the Police would have had to ask the providers of the Benefits for that information in order to inform the Court of how much Handyman i clearlly stated that there is a massive dispararites then the 154 the police claim . If they had asked the issuing Authorities i dont know where they get the 154 per week from for the carreers Allowance from |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2022 18:19:58 GMT
FWIW the Daily Mail article Handyman refers to (written by Paul Bracchi) appears to have been pulled by the Daily Mail  |
|
