Blind man reported for fraud after playing darts..

harveybobbles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017848/Registered-blind-man-reported-benefits-staff-scoring-180-maximum-charity-darts-event.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

Indie_Kid

Some people really do need to get their facts straight before they start reporting people.

(and how I wish I could play darts - as a result of my visual and neurological problems, I have no co-ordination = makes playing darts fun...)

savemoney

I think the problem is far too much negative press especially in DM about fraud. Even though I read recently its as low as 0.5% of claimants. The perception is many people may be on fiddle.

Indie_Kid

Agreed. Some people have this bizarre idea of what disability is and if you don't meet their criteria, you can't possibly be disabled. I've had that from people who have disabilities themselves and people who work with disabled people, who really should know better, supposedly.

Chrysalis

this is why people making these calls should be made to declare who they are.

Think of how much time is wasted by the fraud department on rogue calls.

sadly this scares the disabled people in to staying in a shell, as if you try to do something someone will yell "fraud" when you "appear well".

benniebert

savemoney wrote: »

I think the problem is far too much negative press especially in DM about fraud. Even though I read recently its as low as 0.5% of claimants. The perception is many people may be on fiddle.

Put it another way. The government say that the figure is 0.5% of claimants based on what they know and from the number of cases that have been found to be fraudulent.


So using typical government logic, only 0.5% is the right figure.


They seem not to accept that there are many others that don't get caught.
This is very much like the rate of crime figures. They can only record those that they know about. Are they suggesting that all crimes are reported?


What the true figure is no one knows - that is unless everybody tells the DWP that they have been rather naughty in the past and got away with it. I'm not going to admit to anybody what I have done in the past concerning the DWP over the past 40 years. Suffice it to say, that when I felt that fiddling the system was necessary I did it. But those small activities involving small amounts were never recorded.
I can name another 5 people in my family that at one time or another over the past 35 years have needed to fiddle the system - they have never been caught.


Personally I believe that the true rate of benefit fraud is way way above the 1/2% that the government say it is.

dori2o

benniebert wrote: »

Put it another way. The government say that the figure is 0.5% of claimants based on what they know and from the number of cases that have been found to be fraudulent.


So using typical government logic, only 0.5% is the right figure.


They seem not to accept that there are many others that don't get caught.
This is very much like the rate of crime figures. They can only record those that they know about. Are they suggesting that all crimes are reported?


What the true figure is no one knows - that is unless everybody tells the DWP that they have been rather naughty in the past and got away with it. I'm not going to admit to anybody what I have done in the past concerning the DWP over the past 40 years. Suffice it to say, that when I felt that fiddling the system was necessary I did it. But those small activities involving small amounts were never recorded.
I can name another 5 people in my family that at one time or another over the past 35 years have needed to fiddle the system - they have never been caught.


Personally I believe that the true rate of benefit fraud is way way above the 1/2% that the government say it is.

Does the word 'extrapolated' mean anything to you?

benniebert

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Agreed. Some people have this bizarre idea of what disability is and if you don't meet their criteria, you can't possibly be disabled. QUOTE]:



Saying 'some people' does that also include the DWP by any chance?


Failing a DLA/PIP/ESA claim/assessment is in fact saying at best someone is not disabled enough or at worst not disabled at all - by virtue of the fact that they do not meet 'their' criteria?

kwmlondon

I'm not clicking on the link, but my experience of blindness is that someone can have perfect vision in the very centre of their eyesight but be unable to see anything just outside that small tunnel of vision. It's called tunnel vision, I believe. Someone may be able to place a dart in the bullseye but unable to see the the numbers on the dartboard. But since I'm not going to go to the DM I won't comment further. Just wanted to throw that into the mix.

Indie_Kid

kwmlondon wrote: »

I'm not clicking on the link, but my experience of blindness is that someone can have perfect vision in the very centre of their eyesight but be unable to see anything just outside that small tunnel of vision. It's called tunnel vision, I believe. Someone may be able to place a dart in the bullseye but unable to see the the numbers on the dartboard. But since I'm not going to go to the DM I won't comment further. Just wanted to throw that into the mix.

Very few people registered blind have no vision at all. I have several friends who are registered blind. Only one of whom has no vision at all. (he has no optic nerves)

And yes you are right regarding tunnel vision. Whilst not quite as severe, it is a problem I have.

dori2o

benniebert wrote: »

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Agreed. Some people have this bizarre idea of what disability is and if you don't meet their criteria, you can't possibly be disabled. QUOTE]:



Saying 'some people' does that also include the DWP by any chance?


Failing a DLA/PIP/ESA claim/assessment is in fact saying at best someone is not disabled enough or at worst not disabled at all - by virtue of the fact that they do not meet 'their' criteria?

Thankfully that is why we have written criteria and significant amounts of case law which define the criteria for claiming such benefits.

Failing a disability/sickness benefits claim/assessment means nothing in regards to whether or not a person is disabled. You can have a disability and therefore be disabled even if you do not meet the criteria for disability benefits. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

The sooner people realise this the better of as a society we will be.

What makes things worse though is people like you peddling these lies.