Its about helping people get their entitlement! Not about benefits policy!

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Probably because there are more people now who are trying to find ways of getting round the system. This is something that has been commented on on other boards as well as this one.

Whether you are right or wrong, this board should be NONE- JUDGEMENTAL to all and everyone who asks for help and advice.
And let us, all at least try and help and advise our fellow human beings without bias and predudice.

dmg24

nogginthenog wrote: »

Whether you are right or wrong, this board should be NONE- JUDGEMENTAL to all and everyone who asks for help and advice.
And let us, all at least try and help and advise our fellow human beings without bias and predudice.

So we should assist and encourage scammers?

AnxiousMum

I wonder what Martin's liability would be - hosting a forum encouraging scammers and benefit fraudsters? I'm all for helping those in need......the scammers can go to hell, and if they don't like my responses - then tough! Don't post looking for accomplices

enabledebra

Due to the many responses saying people do post to this thread trying to defraud the system I've looked back randomly through it but I haven't found a post I'd be happy to tar with that brush. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that maybe some posters are being unfairly judged?

To use the example of a poster with a partner asking if they can claim as a single person - whilst the answer will usually be no, depending on the circumstances the answer could well be yes, not by use of dishonesty or the exploitation of unintended loopholes, but due to very deliberately drafted legislation and a large body of caselaw. The same goes for very many other seemingly black and white situations.

I picked this example above because it is a good example of the kind of question which seems to lead to responses based on moral opinions and assumptions of whether there should be entitlement to claim rather than to address the question of if there is entitlement or not.

But even where the answer is an unequivocal no I think it would be unfair to to assume that because a controversial question has been asked the asker is seeking to claim benefits they are not entitled to. After all they are asking where they stand in relation to the law because they want to stay on the right side of it?

It's not a crime nor immoral to try to maximise your benefit entitlement within the rules and in my experience when people are looking at how to do this it's because they are trapped in the system for one reason or another and are trying to get by the best they can and not because they have made a lifestyle choice to be a benefit claimant.

I accept that as an infrequent visitor I will have read only a small fraction of posts to this forum but I started this thread because I find the tone of some responses to posts (that simply ask the question of how the law applies to particular circumstances) is unhelpful and I'm sure must make some people hesitant to post queries.

Having said that I also wholeheartedly accept that most posts receive supportive, helpful and generous responses and I wouldn't want my posts to be seen in any way as a denial of that.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

When scammers post I think it's pretty obvious but I think sometimes genuine poster's get attacked as well if they're lifestyle isn't perceived to be the norm or acceptable by regular poster's.

I myself have been on the receiving end many a time & it is very frustrating trying to explain yourself as if you are on trial for some abhorrent crime.

Just my opinion which no doubt is wrong.

alwaysonthego_2

MOVING THREADS FOR BETTER RESPONSES


Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere(please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

AnxiousMum

Well Enabledebra - hope to see you around the forums more often, as with your expertise I'm sure you will be able to guide some of these posters in the right direction. No more reading and running eh?

dmg24

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I wonder what Martin's liability would be - hosting a forum encouraging scammers and benefit fraudsters? I'm all for helping those in need......the scammers can go to hell, and if they don't like my responses - then tough! Don't post looking for accomplices

MSE is seen as a laughing stock on several forums because it allows so many trolls and scammers to continue to post. The well known MSE Benefit of the Doubt goes way too far, as it seems that unless you explicitly say I am a scammer or I have multiple AE's you are allowed to continue posting as you wish.

enabledebra wrote: »

Due to the many responses saying people do post to this thread trying to defraud the system I've looked back randomly through it but I haven't found a post I'd be happy to tar with that brush. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that maybe some posters are being unfairly judged?

To use the example of a poster with a partner asking if they can claim as a single person - whilst the answer will usually be no, depending on the circumstances the answer could well be yes, not by use of dishonesty or the exploitation of unintended loopholes, but due to very deliberately drafted legislation and a large body of caselaw. The same goes for very many other seemingly black and white situations.

I picked this example above because it is a good example of the kind of question which seems to lead to responses based on moral opinions and assumptions of whether there should be entitlement to claim rather than to address the question of if there is entitlement or not.

But even where the answer is an unequivocal no I think it would be unfair to to assume that because a controversial question has been asked the asker is seeking to claim benefits they are not entitled to. After all they are asking where they stand in relation to the law because they want to stay on the right side of it?

It's not a crime nor immoral to try to maximise your benefit entitlement within the rules and in my experience when people are looking at how to do this it's because they are trapped in the system for one reason or another and are trying to get by the best they can and not because they have made a lifestyle choice to be a benefit claimant.

I accept that as an infrequent visitor I will have read only a small fraction of posts to this forum but I started this thread because I find the tone of some responses to posts (that simply ask the question of how the law applies to particular circumstances) is unhelpful and I'm sure must make some people hesitant to post queries.

Having said that I also wholeheartedly accept that most posts receive supportive, helpful and generous responses and I wouldn't want my posts to be seen in any way as a denial of that.

As I stated earlier, there is a very simple way to either confirm or change your view - contribute! You are as welcome as anybody else is, but you have to appreciate that you will antagonise regular posters when you give a contentious view, yet back it up with nothing (by your own admission you have read a very small fraction of the posts on this board).

kermitfrog

What is it with all the poseurs on this thread trying to impress us with their fancy fonts?

Dress a pig in a ball gown, it's still a pig.

AnxiousMum

kermitfrog wrote: »

What is it with all the poseurs on this thread trying to impress us with their fancy fonts?

Dress a pig in a ball gown, it's still a pig.

:beer: or two.....