Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Benefit cheats face ten years in prison.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/benefit-cheats-face-10-years-in-prison-as-keir-starmer-sets-out-tough-new-crown-prosecution-service-guidelines-8818201.html

 

 

 

Can I also just say that before someone else does this is in regard to people to cheating the system, as we all know and have been told far too often, most people who claim benefits are working people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Benefit cheats face ten years in prison.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/benefit-cheats-face-10-years-in-prison-as-keir-starmer-sets-out-tough-new-crown-prosecution-service-guidelines-8818201.html

 

 

 

Can I also just say that before someone else does this is in regard to people to cheating the system, as we all know and have been told far too often, most people who claim benefits are working people.

 

Decent idea (though the length of the maximum sentence does seem a bit disproportionate considering you can be out in 10 if you kill someone with your car), but will it stop people playing the system legally, as does happen? That's the more endemic problem - the habitual benefit claimants who don't work are too good at playing the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Decent idea (though the length of the maximum sentence does seem a bit disproportionate considering you can be out in 10 if you kill someone with your car), but will it stop people playing the system legally, as does happen? That's the more endemic problem - the habitual benefit claimants who don't work are too good at playing the system.

 

I agree, I don't think the actual ten years would be used, but it's good to have something like that there to actually make people realise how serious the crime is that they are committing.

 

Playing the system legally appears to be being clamped down on, I've seen more posts saying that people know of guys etc who have had their money stopped in the last few weeks than I have in the last 5 years, add to that Lamby had found employment.

 

If thats not proof the government are starting to weed out the ones who can't be arsed into work I don't know what is. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

So it's gone up from 7 years to 10 years, I'm sure that'll deter a lot of people. Also jailing people for smaller offences, that'll save a lot of money... 

 

Should finance be an issue when it comes to peoples liberty?

 

I don't think it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADK

ADK

Posted
Posted

Should finance be an issue when it comes to peoples liberty?

 

I don't think it should.

 

Maybe not but a lot of Tories are perfectly happy for criminals to be dumped back into poorer communities because keeping them safely behind bars is too expensive yet they want people to support them locking up small time benefit fraudsters at great cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Should finance be an issue when it comes to peoples liberty?

 

I don't think it should.

 

But I thought in the practical real world we had to save money across ALL fields?  :P

 

Maybe not but a lot of Tories are perfectly happy for criminals to be dumped back into poorer communities because keeping them safely behind bars is too expensive yet they want people to support them locking up small time benefit fraudsters at great cost.

 

You can accuse the Tories of many things, but I'm not sure keeping criminals out of jail is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Maybe not but a lot of Tories are perfectly happy for criminals to be dumped back into poorer communities because keeping them safely behind bars is too expensive yet they want people to support them locking up small time benefit fraudsters at great cost.

 

Just Tories yeah?

 

I suppose all the Guardian reading middle class Lib Dems make sure they flood their communities with criminals because of how caring they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADK

ADK

Posted
Posted

But I thought in the practical real world we had to save money across ALL fields?  :P

 

 

You can accuse the Tories of many things, but I'm not sure keeping criminals out of jail is one of them.

 

 

It was one of Ken Clarkes big things, trying to reduce prison numbers. Not sure what the present justice secretary is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADK

ADK

Posted
Posted

Just Tories yeah?

 

I suppose all the Guardian reading middle class Lib Dems make sure they flood their communities with criminals because of how caring they are?

 

It's probably more a middle class thing than any one political party, even so, cost should come into the equation when dealing with fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

It's probably more a middle class thing than any one political party, even so, cost should come into the equation when dealing with fraud.

 

I agree with you, so don't turn into party politics. That's not fair.

Sometimes we do. ;)

 

Cyril Smith? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Zingari

Zingari

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://news.sky.com/story/1147058/jobless-to-be-forced-to-work-for-benefits

 

Pretty much a similar system that I have been advocating for a while. The key comment is music to most peoples ears.

I'd be all for it if they were paid at least minimum hourly rate and if the minimum wage is about £6.30 ,  so that means if they were forced to work a 40 hour week they would be entitled to about £240 per week.

 
Put another another way a single person would only have to work 12 hours or so at the minimum wage to earn the equivalent of the dole.
 
 
 
Isn't this what they say they are trying to stamp out with illegal immigrant workers only the other day ?
Edited by Zingari
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

I'd be all for it if they were paid at least minimum hourly rate and if the minimum wage is about £6.30 , so that means if they were forced to work a 40 hour week they would be entitled to about £240 per week.

Put another another way a single person would only have to work 12 hours or so at the minimum wage to earn the equivalent of the dole.

Isn't this what they say they are trying to stamp out with illegal immigrant workers only the other day ?

JSA + housing benefit + free council tax + all the little extras they get... if they worked 40 hours per week they'd be earning the equivalent of minimum wage. The benefit cap is £350 per week, that's well above what you'd get on min wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

JSA + housing benefit + free council tax + all the little extras they get... if they worked 40 hours per week they'd be earning the equivalent of minimum wage. The benefit cap is £350 per week, that's well above what you'd get on min wage.

 

Then give them the job properly and take them off all the benefits. I've always thought the idea of 'working for benefits' is cart-before-horse anyhow - surely if you're working and getting money in return, that's employment?

 

What's the sense in spending public money on hiring out benefit seekers to private companies for labour? If they want workers, advertise the jobs and take people on in the usual manner? And if it's public/community work, just give them a public work contract and make it all official (ie. a proper job), rather than this half-arsed solution. It all seems ridiculously short-term and far more complex than it needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

Then give them the job properly and take them off all the benefits. I've always thought the idea of 'working for benefits' is cart-before-horse anyhow - surely if you're working and getting money in return, that's employment?

What's the sense in spending public money on hiring out benefit seekers to private companies for labour? If they want workers, advertise the jobs and take people on in the usual manner? And if it's public/community work, just give them a public work contract and make it all official (ie. a proper job), rather than this half-arsed solution. It all seems ridiculously short-term and far more complex than it needs to be.

We've been through this before. These are jobs that businesses wouldn't ordinarily pay for. They'll only take them on if funded by government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...