Dilemma

AngelOfTheNorth

Poppie68 wrote: »

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...

So to be clear, are you suggesting people ought to give themselves the right to go prying into others' bank statements in order to unofficially investigate them for benefit fraud or not? As for going on your suspicions, best hope you actually have some idea what you're talking about otherwise you're going to be costing us taxpayers rather more than you save.

swingaloo wrote: »

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.

Oh I'll get it anyway, barring inconveniently timed thread locking. But off you go, I'm sure you're very busy reading other people's bank statements.

Pollycat

Poppie68 wrote: »

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.

You're not a benefit fraud investigator, FGS!

If you think this is what reporting benefit fraud is all about, God help anybody on benefits who has the slightest thing to do with you.

If I knew - for sure - that somebody was committing benefit fraud, I would report them.

What I wouldn't do - and it's this that I find deeply distasteful - is go sneaking a look at their bank statements (which somebody should be able to leave out in their own home without some nosy parker taking a look), or 'digging deep and prying'.

As someone who has some principles, I would have to have solid evidence before I reported someone.

Poppie68

I have already said I wouldn't personally do it, but to have firm evidence like you suggest before reporting someone you need to get the evidence in the first place...

AngelOfTheNorth

Poppie68 wrote: »

I have already said I wouldn't personally do it, but to have firm evidence like you suggest before reporting someone you need to get the evidence in the first place...

Once again then, are you suggesting people ought to do it or not? Because there is, of course, an option B- not unilaterally appointing yourself an unofficial benefit fraud investigator in the first place, at nobody's request and with nobody's permission. This is a different question to whether you'd do it yourself, and as such telling us what you'd personally do is not answering it.

Pollycat

Poppie68 wrote: »

I have already said I wouldn't personally do it, but to have firm evidence like you suggest before reporting someone you need to get the evidence in the first place...

I would put that that a different way:
to have firm evidence like you suggest before reporting someone you need to have the evidence in the first place
i.e. not 'get' the evidence

Why do you feel it is your responsibility to gather (or get) evidence of benefit fraud?

mgdavid

AngelOfTheNorth wrote: »

Once again then, are you suggesting people ought to do it or not? Because there is, of course, an option B- not unilaterally appointing yourself an unofficial benefit fraud investigator in the first place, at nobody's request and with nobody's permission. This is a different question to whether you'd do it yourself, and as such telling us what you'd personally do is not answering it.

seems amazingly hypocritical, given you are a self-appointed arbiter of what's right and wrong in the world. Fortunately your strongly held and aggressively put across beliefs don't seem to match up with the majority of replies...

AngelOfTheNorth

mgdavid wrote: »

seems amazingly hypocritical, given you are a self-appointed arbiter of what's right and wrong in the world. Fortunately your strongly held and aggressively put across beliefs don't seem to match up with the majority of replies...

And your definition of hypocritical doesn't match up with the one in the dictionary. For that to be the case, answering a question on the internet at the invitation of the OP and unilaterally appointing oneself an unofficial benefit investigator would have to be the same thing- they are, of course, not. Never mind eh, try harder next time.

Poppie68

FGS the pair of you are like a pair of wild cats, ready to scratch peoples eyes out just because their views differ to yours...go and have a lie down the pair of you your bp must be through the roof.

Pollycat

Poppie68 wrote: »

FGS the pair of you are like a pair of wild cats, ready to scratch peoples eyes out just because their views differ to yours...go and have a lie down the pair of you your bp must be through the roof.

My blood pressure is fine, but thanks for asking.

I have no problem with people having differing opinions to mine.

What I do have an issue with is someone asking for advice/opinions then commenting that the opinions they have received are "harsh" simply because they differ to the one held by the OP.

As for you - you asked why I thought your comment about "sometimes to get evidence you have to pry and dig a little deeper" was distasteful.

I answered you and have continued commenting on your later posts.

My opinion.
Your opinion.

Clearly the 2 differ vastly.
But you have the right to express your opinion, just as I have the right to express mine.

Poppie68

:)We will agree to disagree Pollycat....