Benefits Street

[MooseBreath]

So you have nothing to support that...

in reality not even those on the programme are actually like that, it is a very minor problem in the UK.

Do you have anything to support that it's a "very minor problem"?

You're claiming the people on the show last weren't actually laughing at the idea of work, in and out of jail, trying to steal from Asda delivery vans etc?

[Alf Bentley]

The fact that those benefit fraud stats have to be estimated renders them completely pointless really.

 

I disagree. Most stats are estimated to some extent. Stats for employment or GDP don't identify every single person working or every bit of economic activity (never heard of the black economy?). 

 

It means the stats are not 100% accurate, but are approximations based on evidence.

 

What I think you mean is that they don't suit your argument so you choose to dismiss them. The figure for Polish immigration (much higher than officially expected) will also be an approximation, but I doubt you'd just dismiss that.

 

Anyway, even if official sources are under-estimating benefit fraud, surely it is just as likely that they are under-estimating tax evasion and avoidance....which, I repeat, is deemed to be 16 times higher than benefit fraud.

[Webbo]

 

 

The problem with these kind of programmes, is that people watch them and think it is the norm and that all benefit claimants are like that, when in reality not even those on the programme are actually like that, it is a grotesque and sensationalist depiction of what is a very minor problem in the UK, that is not to say it is not a problem, but the amount of time and effort dedicated  to such small amounts of money is ridiculous.

A) Nobody has said that everyone on benefits is like that.

B) How do you know it's only a minor problem?

[MooseBreath]

I bet they'd be accurate if labour were in power though.

The guesses on fraud seem on the low side to me, so if anything if Labour were in power I'd have even more reason to believe they're not accurate.

[The God Emperor]

Some interesting stats here regarding the money wasted through benefit fraud:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796

 

Official figures suggest that £2bn is lost through benefit fraud, compared to a total benefits bill of £194.3bn

 

That compares to £32bn lost through tax evasion and avoidance. Why isn't 16 times more attention paid to tax evasion and avoidance than to benefit fraud, I wonder?

 

That £2bn lost to benefit fraud also compares to £12bn in benefit entitlements that goes unclaimed, apparently.

 

Such stats have to be estimates, of course, but are very interesting.

could be more lost through tax evasion due to more people being eligible to pay tax that claim benefits. 

[MooseBreath]

I disagree. Most stats are estimated to some extent. Stats for employment or GDP don't identify every single person working or every bit of economic activity (never heard of the black economy?).

It means the stats are not 100% accurate, but are approximations based on evidence.

What I think you mean is that they don't suit your argument so you choose to dismiss them. The figure for Polish immigration (much higher than officially expected) will also be an approximation, but I doubt you'd just dismiss that.

Anyway, even if official sources are under-estimating benefit fraud, surely it is just as likely that they are under-estimating tax evasion and avoidance....which, I repeat, is deemed to be 16 times higher than benefit fraud.

The fact is that you can't know how much fraud is or has been taking place, precisely because it is fraud and fraud doesn't announce itself. You can look at how much fraud has been prevented but that doesn't really tell you anything.

You're right in that the same could be said for tax evasion. It's a bit off-topic but I'm sure the tax evasion stats you've quoted are quite old and relate to companies who have since been made by the current government to get their affairs in order.

[Rincewind]

  why do they think this way though?, but it does seem there are plenty out there who genuinely feel that way.

I think maybe it is because of the way it is reported.

[Webbo]

I think maybe it is because of the way it is reported.

How fair and balanced do you think DNO's reporting is?

[Captain...]

A) Nobody has said that everyone on benefits is like that.

B) How do you know it's only a minor problem?

 

A) But it perpetuates the stereotype which some people want to believe

B) Because the number of people classed as long term unemployed and are going to be affected by the Workfare scheme is 200,000. 200,000 long term (2 years+) unemployed in a country of 70million, is negligible, career benefits claimants is not as wide spread as is reported.

 

Of course there are some people exploiting the system, but we should be taking proper measures to combat fraud, and not using extreme examples as justification to cut benefits from those that need it and deserve it.

[The People's Hero]

Jury still out on this programme for me. Good to see coverage of a part of society that TV often ignores, but I hope that future episodes are a bit more balanced: show the skivers and criminals, by all means, but also people keen to work.

You must have missed these, Moose:

Scroll to 6th paragraph: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/bedroom-tax-march-heartless-reform

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/22/owen-jones-iain-duncan-smith-question-time_n_2176791.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/01/bbcs-growing-up-poor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/duncan-smith-poverty-benefit-sanctions-easterhouse

So, when "experts" (civil servants, consultants etc.) appointed by a Labour government implement policies that you don't like, increasing tax credits or whatever, do you say "we should trust these experts; they are qualified to decide"?!

I appreciate that you were making a specific point, but a lot of people's benefits are being stopped, often on spurious grounds to meet arbitrary targets.

- My mate is PC-literate but has no expertise in programming. The Jobcentre suggested that he apply for a computer programming job for which he was completely unqualified - and stopped his benefit when he didn't apply, even though he'd applied for numerous other, more suitable jobs.

- My nephew had applied for dozens of jobs, but didn't take the right sort of evidence to his interview; rather than give him a couple of days to provide proof, they stopped his benefits for 4 weeks, meaning that he couldn't pay his rent/utilities, had to scrounge money from family to buy food and pay fares to get to job interviews (he's 23 and lives in a flat). Although he's mainly worked since leaving school, if the "no housing benefit under 25" policy applied today, he would effectively be made homeless as nobody in his family could put him up long-term, except on a settee, with massive stress.

Part of the problem is that, through medical advances, more people with disabilities or serious health problems are living long lives (often without being employable), where once they'd have never been born alive or would have died young: e.g. more premature babies saved, people with chronic health problems living longer. If that was us or members of our families, wouldn't we think that was a good thing, even if they cannot work?

Disagree with the rest, but your first paragraph (above) is spot on. The problem is that it is costly and time-consuming to address such "cyclical" (I'd say "structural") problems. If the parents are uneducated, long-term unemployed, maybe into drugs or crime, it takes a lot of effort and resources to prevent their kids following the same path - hence all the cash that Labour spent on early years interventions of various sorts. Now, the Tories are shutting such schemes down to cut the deficit. In the long-term, won't that mean that more will fall into the same trap?

Well said! I'll use that phrase next time I come on here talking crap at 2am!

A chap named Hitler already tried that policy and it wasn't a great success:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics#Hitler.27s_views_on_Eugenics

Who knows, though? Maybe the policy could be reapplied - starting with degenerates who can't spell "sterilisation" (or "sterilization", if you prefer)!

Some clarification would be useful, People's Hero... I'd always assumed that your unpleasantness was caused by some deep unhappiness or bitterness, despite you apparently having a great job, family and social life. But are you really just one of these "trolls" that I hear so much about? It's an incomprehensible phenomenon to us oldies, don't you know!

There was one brief discussion about it early on - the people (can't remember which) said there was no work available locally. Not the whole story, obviously, as no doubt jobs would've been available in other accessible areas....but would they have been competitive candidates for those jobs? The bloke with the lager cans (Fungi?) was pretty unemployable. The shoplifter was intelligent enough to work (he'd learned to make a clever gadget for his shoplifting bag) but seemed too disturbed - witness his reaction to the police. The women and the black bloke with the 50p mobile shop might be employable but how competitive would they be as applicants after ages on the dole, when there are still a lot more unemployed than there are jobs?

Disagree with the rest, but completely agree with this. The problem is, how much help to help themselves do they get? People like that, long-term unemployed, lacking qualifications or social skills and with a range of personality problems or substance abuse issues would need a hell of a lot of rehabilitation. We don't know why they've ended up in that state - maybe future episodes will reveal that. It might be their fault, but might be down to crap parenting, abuse etc. Long-term rehabilitation for work is the only solution, but that won't always work, it takes time and it costs a lot of money - at a time when public money is sorely lacking.....so, looks like the cheaper "solution" of the "stick" is the one on offer. That'll work with a few capable idlers, but not with people as unemployable as some we saw in that programme - so, homelessness or a life of crime it is, then!

New Year! New Alf! New, snappier posts!

Never has one man typed so much but contributed so little to the discussion. I'd love to see you venture a real opinion. Something you actually believe. You criticise others but have very little to say for yourself. Why not make 2014 the year you form your first opinion?

[Rincewind]

How fair and balanced do you think DNO's reporting is?

ell a lot of it is done by going out and talking to people, researching in areas other media does not and done by people that have knowledge and experience of the issues. So I'd say it is above 50/50

[The People's Hero]

Above 50/50! Doesn't make sense!

I reckon it's 63/63. Or 14375/2364536

[Webbo]

A) But it perpetuates the stereotype which some people want to believe

B) Because the number of people classed as long term unemployed and are going to be affected by the Workfare scheme is 200,000. 200,000 long term (2 years+) unemployed in a country of 70million, is negligible, career benefits claimants is not as wide spread as is reported.

 

Of course there are some people exploiting the system, but we should be taking proper measures to combat fraud, and not using extreme examples as justification to cut benefits from those that need it and deserve it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/number-of-longterm-jobless-hits-20year-high--and-most-havent-worked-for-two-years-8713535.html

Around 915,000 Britons have now been unemployed for a year or more, up 32,000 from last year, making it the highest number of long-term jobless since 1996. More than half of these -  474,000 -  have been out of work for at least two years.

 

Also not all those living on benefits are classed as unemployed.

[The People's Hero]

If benefits were abolished, I wonder how many 'disabled' people would make a miraculous recovery?

[Webbo]

ell a lot of it is done by going out and talking to people, researching in areas other media does not and done by people that have knowledge and experience of the issues. So I'd say it is above 50/50

Well talk to me then Ken, I reckon this govt is doing a great job and all their measures are a good idea. Will you be reporting that or will you be reporting about about a poor orphan who is starving to death while George Osbourne quaffs champagne and laughs at her.

[Rincewind]

They still have responsibilities on reporting protocole. Maybe I phased it wrong i was asked ow balanced it is and I was replying that it was maybe in favour of the underdog which I would class as any vulnerable person from the abused child to the disabled to the low income working family and where there is injustice. Something that has been lacking.

[Webbo]

They still have responsibilities on reporting protocole. Maybe I phased it wrong i was asked ow balanced it is and I was replying that it was maybe in favour of the underdog which I would class as any vulnerable person from the abused child to the disabled to the low income working family and where there is injustice. Something that has been lacking.

That's subjective though. Would you say the shoplifter/thief in the programme last night was a victim of injustice? Did he deserve better?

[Guest]

I think I've just seen a trail for Midlands Today saying that there's a report on these people and how they're now complaining about the way they were portrayed.

Edit: I didn't watch the programme itself and have no intention of doing so just fyi

[Rincewind]

That's subjective though. Would you say the shoplifter/thief in the programme last night was a victim of injustice? Did he deserve better?

he was one person highlighted in a TV program. I have little sympathy for him.

[Captain...]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/number-of-longterm-jobless-hits-20year-high--and-most-havent-worked-for-two-years-8713535.html

Also not all those living on benefits are classed as unemployed.

 

I am aware that not all of those living on benefits are classed as unemployed, and every statistic takes a different definition, whether carers, single mothers and disabled are classed as unemployed or not. None of these figures quoted on this thread give a real picture, and trying to find the actual breakdown has proved to be beyond me.

 

Regards the long term unemployed figure, not all unemployed are able to take part in the workfare scheme, as they are not capable of working, but seeing as it is targetted at the problem section of society 200,000 is a small figure. Although I am starting to suspect my source has a hidden agenda, but even if it is around 500,000 that is still a small amount comparatively, anyway I'm not really concentrating on what I'm writing, I probably should stop posting.

[Rincewind]

I think I've just seen a trail for Midlands Today saying that there's a report on these people and how they're now complaining about the way they were portrayed.

Edit: I didn't watch the programme itself and have no intention of doing so just fyi

They would have (should have) been asked if they objected before. Even shown a preview. I know I would not be happy about it if i lived on that street.

[Webbo]

he was one person highlighted in a TV program. I have little sympathy for him.

But if you interviewed him and he told you some sob story you'd publish it no questions asked. I guarantee it'd be somebody else's fault.

[Captain...]

If benefits were abolished, I wonder how many 'disabled' people would make a miraculous recovery?

 

And how many would be plunged into poverty and end up dead.

 

We should be doing everything we can to identify fraudsters, but not at the expense of those that genuinely need our help.

[Rincewind]

But if you interviewed him and he told you some sob story you'd publish it no questions asked. I guarantee it'd be somebody else's fault.

No we would not publish it as a sob story. He is not represensitive of the people we want to help. He is a stereotype that the public are being duped into believing is the norm.

[Guest]

They would have (should have) been asked if they objected before. Even shown a preview. I know I would not be happy about it if i lived on that street.

Thanks for the update in media practice Mr Murdoch.