Dilemma

swingaloo

Mojisola wrote: »

I'd much rather have a friend like you who looked out for my interests than the other posters who would have kept quiet.

Many years ago, a close relative was devastated when his wife left him with loads of unpaid bills and was completely crushed when he found that several of their close friends knew what she was doing but hadn't said anything to him.

Thank you.

AngelOfTheNorth

Poppie68 wrote: »

I actually wrote knew or 'suspected' money being taken from a bank account...and again if people suspect even without knowing the full facts it should be reported, after all something must get their attention to suspect it in the first place....if everyone waited until they had 100% evidence more people would be getting away with theft.

Nope. You may or may not be aware that the system is understaffed and creaky. If everyone reported every suspicion they have, bearing in mind that lots of people have no idea what they're talking about and suspect people of fiddling even when there's no real basis, resources would be wasted on investigating baseless, poorly informed reports. For your theory to work, people would have to have a better understanding of the benefits and tax credits system than they do.

Poppie68

AngelOfTheNorth wrote: »

You would have needed to look closely at a bank statement two feet in front of you to see entries like Carers Allowance, yes. Unless it was in like size 96 font. One doesn't need to have been there, only to have some familiarity with bank statements and human eyesight. As such, you nosied at someone else's bank statement, which you had no business doing. Backtracking won't work.

And why not look.....you want people to have evidence so the system is no it 'weighed down with baseless investigations'......sometimes to get evidence you have to pry and dig a little deeper.

Pollycat

Mojisola wrote: »

I'd much rather have a friend like you who looked out for my interests than the other posters who would have kept quiet.

Many years ago, a close relative was devastated when his wife left him with loads of unpaid bills and was completely crushed when he found that several of their close friends knew what she was doing but hadn't said anything to him.

If I had been sure that I was right about a friend's partner, I would have spoken up.

I wouldn't have posted on a public forum asking for advice, I'd know in my heart what the best thing was to do.

FWIW, the OP didn't sound that sure about her facts when she first posted.

Pollycat

Poppie68 wrote: »

And why not look.....you want people to have evidence so the system is no it 'weighed down with baseless investigations'......sometimes to get evidence you have to pry and dig a little deeper.

I find this deeply distasteful.

swingaloo

Pollycat wrote: »

Just hang on for one minute here.

You asked for advice/opinions.

You got advice/opinions.

Just because everybody didn't rise up as one and urge you to report this woman, doesn't mean the responses were harsh.

It just means that other posters don't agree with you.


It was on the coffee table.
Unless you have excellent eyesight, of course it was possible not to look.
Even if you have excellent eyesight, it would have been obvious it was a bank statement and you didn't need to look.
You wanted to look.


That's pretty good (not to mention convenient) timing.


I'm curious as to what advice you were expecting then.
You didn't want to tell him.
But you hate benefit cheats.



So if you 'knew the facts for sure' why would you baulk at telling your friend?
Especially as he'd previously shared some information about his partner with you.
You didn't sound that sure in your first post.

Not even worthy of a reply really, some people are just out to provoke arguments. Im only trying to help a friend not analyse the post of someone I know nothing about and try to find anomalies which don't exist.

Thank God there are also some sensible, reasonable people who have understood and replied without trying to find a hidden agenda.

To those who have helped thank you.

AngelOfTheNorth

Poppie68 wrote: »

And why not look.....you want people to have evidence so the system is no it 'weighed down with baseless investigations'......sometimes to get evidence you have to pry and dig a little deeper.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting people ought to go prying into other people's bank statements in order to perform their own unoffical, unilateral checks on whether people are claiming the correct benefits? Dear me. You seem to see yourself and OP as some kind of cross between the Famous Five and the Stasi. Equal parts laughable and worrying, but I hope you aren't often invited into people's homes.

swingaloo wrote: »

Not even worthy of a reply really, some people are just out to provoke arguments. Im only trying to help a friend not analyse the post of someone I know nothing about and try to find anomalies which don't exist.

Thank God there are also some sensible, reasonable people who have understood and replied without trying to find a hidden agenda.

To those who have helped thank you.

If you didn't think the post was worthy of a reply, replying to it was a funny way of showing it. And if you don't want opinions, only validation of your actions, don't ask for opinions. Seeing your backside when people point out that you did something way out of order is pathetic.

Poppie68

Pollycat wrote: »

I find this deeply distasteful.

Distasteful why?....I'm talking in general, for anybody investigating or gathering evidence, they need to pry and dig deep. Or should we just ask someone if they are commiting benefit fraud and when they say no, just go "OK" and leave it at that....even though you have your suspicions for one reason or another and a chance of gaining a little confirmation of your suspicions by prying or digging a little deeper.

Poppie68

AngelOfTheNorth wrote: »

Just to be clear, you're suggesting people ought to go prying into other people's bank statements in order to perform their own unoffical, unilateral checks on whether people are claiming the correct benefits? Dear me. You seem to see yourself and OP as some kind of cross between the Famous Five and the Stasi. Equal parts laughable and worrying, but I hope you aren't often invited into people's homes.





I would just rather go on my suspicions....as something would of sparked them in the first place.....you are the one who thinks solid evidence is needed before reporting...so how is anyone going to get that evidence without being a little sneaky? And they do says report if you suspect benefit fraud, and they don't say...only report if you have solid evidence...

swingaloo

AngelOfTheNorth wrote: »

Just to be clear, you're suggesting people ought to go prying into other people's bank statements in order to perform their own unoffical, unilateral checks on whether people are claiming the correct benefits? Dear me. You seem to see yourself and OP as some kind of cross between the Famous Five and the Stasi. Equal parts laughable and worrying, but I hope you aren't often invited into people's homes.



If you didn't think the post was worthy of a reply, replying to it was a funny way of showing it. And if you don't want opinions, only validation of your actions, don't ask for opinions. Seeing your backside when people point out that you did something way out of order is pathetic.

Go on, reply again. I bet you love having the last word. I will go along with it and not respond again so you can have it.