Wrongly reported (malicious?)

Jamie_Carter

portly1 wrote: »

No it's not - it depends on the crime involved.

I would put pornography, child abuse, abuse of older people in care homes, as being in a higher category than benefit fraud. Yet, very few people bother to report these crimes. Generally they are detected many years down the line by accident or by the police investigating other more serious crimes and linking them.

So you think some serious crimes should be reported, and some shouldn't??

Jamie_Carter

portly1 wrote: »

Don't make me laugh - there is absolutely no connection with a failed AA claim and someone who may or may not be as disabled as they were adjudged to be by the DWP.

The government and the Daily Mail have done a good one on you.

So if you saw me take and eat a bag of crisps whilst I walked round Tescos then left without paying for the said bag of crisps, what would you do? Get hold of the manager and report the crime then wait for the police to come so that they could take your statement - or would you just not bother?

It's still theft!

And as I have said before, errors and mistakes account for nearly double the loss of monies when compared to actual fraud. The government should sort themselves out first before tackling small scale fraud.

You are contradicting yourself now. :rotfl:

Yes a crime is a crime, and all should be reported, including benefit fraud.

Jamie_Carter

Poppie68 wrote: »

Is pornography illegal???
Child abuse gets reported as soon as it becomes possible. ie discovered by an adult or when the victim has become strong enough to report.
Abuse of older people in care homes, again when it is discovered it gets reported.

Dying to know what all the above has to do with benefit fraud..which is also a crime.

It's called trying to deflect attention from the issue.

Poppie68

SandraScarlett wrote: »

But if their claim was accepted, it would just mean another Mulberry bag!

xx

Maybe this time a matching purse...:) I'm just impressed though that the 2 daughters have elevated themselves from benefit fraudsters to kept women..

Jamie_Carter

portly1 wrote: »

It's all to do with the seriousness of the offence.

Why is it acceptable to have four times as many reports per 100 offences reported for benefit fraud as it is for the number of child pornography, child abuse and abuse of older people in care homes added together? Maybe those offences aren't seen as serious as benefit fraud?

Hence why benefit fraud if and when I see it or find out about it, doesn't feature very high on my level of response. I would prefer to report much more serious offences that happen every day yet go unnoticed by most.

Fraud is a serious offence.

As you said earlier, "theft is theft".

bengal-stripe

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It isn't tit for tat if the OP's husband is innocent of the allegations, but the person who made the allegations is guilty of the same thing. It is just being a responsible citizen, and saving the tax payer from being defrauded.

The OP cannot be certain, that the person she suspects has actually made the allegation. Nor is she likely to have certainty, that the person in question is actually involved in illegal activities. Obviously, until now, she has not felt the need (or had the certainty) to report her neighbour. If it is necessary to report a criminal matter, it should not depend on getting some sort of revenge.

Do you really want to have a situation as in the former GDR, where half the population spied on the other half: husbands on wives, children on parents, employees on their employers etc?

Jamie_Carter

bengal-stripe wrote: »

The OP cannot be certain, that the person she suspects has actually made the allegation. Nor is she likely to have certainty, that the person in question is actually involved in illegal activities. Obviously, until now, she has not felt the need (or had the certainty) to report her neighbour. If it is necessary to report a criminal matter, it should not depend on getting some sort of revenge.

How do you know, or are you just making assumptions?

Yorkie1

The OP asked two straightforward questions about the specifics of how the DWP are likely to deal with the report about the OP's OH.

This thread then descends into thinly veiled criticism of the OP who dared to mention, at the end of their post, as an aside, that the person making the malicious allegation doesn't pay all their tax. There's not one iota of a suggestion that the OP wants revenge on the accuser. Nor is there any iota of a suggestion that they intend to report them to the tax authorities.

These threads really do welcome newbies, as we're asked to do, don't they?!

FBaby

What about the moral aspect to it. The fact that benefits for disabled people was set to help disabled people, not lazy people who will find anyway to get a good life without working, who take away from those who are truly unable to work. It's not so much the stealing from tax payers that is despicable, it's stealing from those genuinely in need who have to do with less therapy, drugs, social support that would make their life much smoother because of those lazy greedy scumbags.

fingledingle

Working class morals fuelled by propaganda of the government, It's a shame the elite don't go round reporting each other for their skeletons, Yes benefit fraud is wrong, End of, but over hyped, makes a great side show for the theatre of smoke and mirrors.