If the whole neighbourhood is on the take and you're the last man standing and the neighbourhood is being swept up, how long before the sledgehammer of suspicion knocks on the door?

In areas where the majority of families are living on benefit, I strongly doubt that most of them are claiming fraudulently.

Even The Daily Mail article theblether used to support his claims didn't say this; in fact it didn't mention benefit fraud at all!

So if those making false claims are swept up and those not doing so aren't, how would the 'sledgehammer of suspicion' know which door to knock on?

Having said that, if someone does nothing due to fear of reprisals, that is understandable. But from what he has said, that does not apply in theblether's case.

Ok if reprisal is not a threat, then I stand by previous posts, report.

Anonymous grassing makes you a coward and a grass.

Incidentally 7x7, I didn't post the Daily Mail link in connection with proving benefit fraud, I posted it to demonstrate to you the area I live in. No more, no less.

I disagree; it makes you a responsible citizen.

But if you don't want to report the dozens of people you claim you know to be making fraudulent claims anonymously, you don't have to. You can give your name and address when making the report if you wish to do so.

As you linked to the Daily Mail report in a post which quoted Mossfinn suggesting that you make such reports and was a direct response to his suggestion, then it was fair to assume that you intended it to show the level of fraud in your area.

Perhaps you should be more precise in future.

Not come up with a figure yet, then?

I answered your question some time ago; why wont you answer mine?

As you linked to the Daily Mail report in a post which quoted Mossfinn suggesting that you make such reports and was a direct response to his suggestion, then it was fair to assume that you intended it to show the level of fraud in your area.

Where does he suggest that he makes such reports? I just checked his linked quote, I see no such representation, have I checked the wrong quote?

Anonymous grassing makes you a coward and a grass.

Incidentally 7x7, I didn't post the Daily Mail link in connection with proving benefit fraud, I posted it to demonstrate to you the area I live in. No more, no less.

Trust me B I have little belief that you are a coward, and my interpretation of a grass is probably different to yours. I spend a certain amount of my working life, trying to keep people safe, I encourage people to talk to me in regard to unsafe practices, near misses etc. I am continually told " I am not a grass" my response is, I am trying to ensure people go home in the same reasonable state that they arrived in. We are not at school anymore, the rules are different. Measurably, if benefit is meant for those in need and I believe the Govts are seriously at fault of their duty of care, we as individuals need to take a role.

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

As you linked to the Daily Mail report in a post which quoted Mossfinn suggesting that you make such reports and was a direct response to his suggestion, then it was fair to assume that you intended it to show the level of fraud in your area.

Where does he suggest that he makes such reports? I just checked his linked quote, I see no such representation, have I checked the wrong quote?

He doesn't suggest he makes such reports, you suggested that he did.

The post I am referring to is this one:

Ok then B, but the use of the term rape is strong, so report it. Although sentences poorly reflect the act it is the law, only the individual or a cause can change it. Remember Kaisan, small steps and all that!!

I would need to report just about everyone that lives around me. Please excuse me if I choose not to do so, especially in light of the fact that they invariably receive no punishment whatsoever.

Hold that against me if you wish. I would prefer though that you held it against the successive governments that talked the talk and didn't walk the walk.

Incidentally, I live in Bridgeton, Glasgow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143850/Glasgow-neighbourhood-9-10-adults-welfare-crowned-benefits-capital-Britain.html

I have highlighted the most relevant parts.

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

As you have never reported anyone, how do you know what action follows?

What happens after you report someone

The DWP Fraud Investigation Service will look at the information you give. If you’ve given enough information, they’ll check the person’s benefit claim.

The Fraud Investigation Service isn’t allowed to tell you the outcome.

Sometimes no action is taken. It might be that the person has declared a change in their circumstances and their benefit is not affected by it.

The Fraud Investigation Service will only take action if they find the person has been committing benefit fraud. Action can include removing a person’s benefits and taking them to court.

The mechanisms are in place to deal with fraud; but the DWP cannot be everywhere.

People like you who say they know of fraudsters but do nothing about it except moan on internet forums because they are not a 'coward' or 'a grass' simply make the problem worse.

If you really do know of the dozens of fraudsters you claim to know about; do something about it.

Yes I agree I have complicated things, I have mistaken your quote to be attributed to B, I withdraw it. But the language of your post could be misinterpreted when not taken in the round of the previous posts. But I accept it is my bad.

No problem; I could have worded it better.

:Lies, dam_n lies, and statistics.

You've got a good point there. The 70 pence in £100 figure is absurd, and here's why. Take out the proportion of the spending which is automatically paid to pensioners for reaching the age of retirement, just that alone which is an absolute right, then have a look at the figure again. There are over 10 million pensioners in the country now.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right, and that pot is getting raped by fraud. I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to.

You're right Mosha, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I don't think the Royal Statistical Society would consider "I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to" to be statistically valid

It's statistically valid, but I know hundreds of people claiming benefits that they are entitled to, and none that they are not. The fact is, I mix with a better class of people. Statisticians generally take into account facts when they are compiling surveys, and so should we, before we start whinging.

SC

Okay 7x7, just for a change I'll answer you directly.

You are showing breathtaking naivete, how do you think I know what happens after a report is made? I know people that have done it.

You can send all the links you like, what they say and what actually happens are two different things altogether.

Myself and Nontabury clash regularly on the forum but on this subject we agree because we both have real life experience of how chronic ( epidemic as Nontabury puts it ) this problem is.

You have no experience of this.

What are you going to do now? Consult with the tooth fairy? You may as well as believe the government on this issue.

Not related but instructional........

A friend of mine was involved in a major car theft ring in 1994. His role was to identify where cars were and the thieves would go get them. Professional rings steal cars to order.

The thieves were paid 150.00 per car, the spotter was paid 100.00, and the guys in the chop shop would lift as much as 500.00 to break the vehicle up quickly. They used to have contests to see who could strip a transit van fastest. The record was just over two hours.

The police were demented as people were literally reporting their car stolen and the car was already in bits. So here's what they did.

They persuaded the legal system that they had to send out a message. A first offense car theft or possession of a stolen car part became an automatic one year jail sentence.

Another friend of mine was one of the first to be jailed under the new regime. The first guy I mentioned and the majority of the other guys in the ring folded their involvement. They were all family men with full time jobs, they couldn't face the prospect of jail.

I know the guy behind the ring, he owned a major car rental company in our area. The police could ever nail him for the thefts but they put an official accountant into his business for a year to see how the figures balanced. He had to hand control of the cheque book to this accountant. Naturally he found that the business figures were unsustainable and false.

The businessman was handed a banning order preventing him from being involved in business in the UK again. Full stop. Another guy I know was handed the same order last June, in fact he was told it was in his best interests to return to Dubai, where he had been hiding out from the UK tax man. He thought it had all blown over, he came back and opened up a new company, and when the revenue got wind of it, they swept in as described.

Meet Larry........( not his real name btw ).

I know several other guys that have fallen foul of specialist police and accountancy units, including Brian Smith, now deceased, who along with his brother received one of the first directorship bans under new regulations back in the 80's. His brother was an ex policeman incidentally.

The authorities do have the ability to put markers down, and they do have specialist units such as the Shadow Economy Team, ( you ever heard of them? ) in place. If one or two of you would step away from the key board I could tell you things about how our government actually operates that in some cases would delight you.

That's why I know for a fact that they have the ability to end this endemic benefit fraud overnight, but they refuse to do so. As long as they refuse to do so, then I refuse to get involved in this charade.

Now you have a choice.......invite me to open up.......or go on the attack again. Up To You.

Okay 7x7, just for a change I'll answer you directly.

You are showing breathtaking naivete, how do you think I know what happens after a report is made? I know people that have done it.

You can send all the links you like, what they say and what actually happens are two different things altogether.

Myself and Nontabury clash regularly on the forum but on this subject we agree because we both have real life experience of how chronic ( epidemic as Nontabury puts it ) this problem is.

You have no experience of this.

What are you going to do now? Consult with the tooth fairy? You may as well as believe the government on this issue.

The government figures are certainly far more credible than anything you have to say.

You say I am showing breathtaking naivete; but it is your arrogance which is breathtaking.

You state an opinion as if it were holy writ and then refuse to back that opinion up; you even refuse to say what you believe the real figure to be!

But that is typical of you: "I am theblether! How dare you question me?"

As for my experiences; I have already said earlier in this topic that I have reported crime when I have known about it.

The mechanism to report this crime already exist.

The penalties already include gaol.

It is people like you who know about fraud yet do nothing about it which means these measures and penalties are not as effective as they may be.

You are part of the problem as much as the fraudsters themselves.

If you do actually know anyone, that is. I suspect your usual blustering and childish insults mean that you don't.

No 7x7, I am far from childish, I have learned not to engage with you as you have this uncanny ability to draw people into ridiculous circular arguments.

Not childish?

Respond to questions with flames, insults and silly smileys.

Post opinion as fact and refuse to back that up with independent evidence.

Calls people who disagree with you and do back up their opinions with independent evidence "Instant Google experts."

No, not childish at all!

This whole argument started because you posted an opinion that the government figures on the amount of benefit fraud were wrong.

All I did was ask a simple question; what do you think the figure is then?

All you had to do was answer that simple question; but instead you started your usual campaign as above.

Why do you do that?

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

If you take the step to report an ALLEGED case of fraud you would expect it to be tried in a a court of law. That's how the law works. It relies on evidence and a trial.

You said in an earlier post that there ought to be some new law passed regarding benefit fraudsters. I'm not quite sure what kind of law you want but whatever it is it still relies on those breaking the law being apprehended and tried.

If the new law were to be passed and you knew people that were breaking that law but you continued to refuse to 'grass them up' what good would that law be? How many people would be tried and sentenced because of that new law if they hadn't been caught? You seem to want to be an upstanding citizen without taking any responsibility.

If you know people who are criminals report them. If you aren't willing to then your lack of action speaks for itself.

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

I hope we aren't being sidelined into just one narrow area to consider here. Granted fraud, and the government response to it are of concern, but I would venture government policy mistakes have led to far more money being wasted than is directly stolen. Statistics are as ever hard to come by, but unless fraud is greater than 13 billion a year it will be less than the benefits bill for unemployed immigrants. We are repeatedly sold the old canard that immigration is a net plus for the economy, but I doubt it very much, but don't doubt that stats to prove this will be very hard to come by.

I am no longer surprised that a forum designed for ex pats should have so many members who are anti immigrant!

If you are one of these; at least get your facts right!

Until they have ILR, which takes at least 5 years, non EEA national immigrants to the UK can only claim contribution based benefits; i.e. benefits to which they are entitled via the NI contributions they have paid.

Although if they are in the UK as the spouse or partner of a British citizen they can, indeed must, claim tax credits jointly with heir spouse of partner; assuming the couple qualify. There are a few other exceptions, as well, such as statutory maternity pay.

The benefits an EEA migrant can claim are also limited; they certainly cannot enter the UK and immediately start to claim; they must have worked in the UK first.

See Public Funds.

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

Statistics are as ever hard to come by, but unless fraud is greater than 13 billion a year it will be less than the benefits bill for unemployed immigrants. We are repeatedly sold the old canard that immigration is a net plus for the economy, but I doubt it very much, but don't doubt that stats to prove this will be very hard to come by.

Funny that.

Chock-full of assumptions and prejudices.....but no facts to support them.

Nothing new then......

Just two articles which contain facts the immigrant bashers wont like.

The Myth of the Immigrant Benefit-scrounger.

David Cameron Accused Of Peddling Immigration Benefits 'Myths'

It's always nice to know where the links come from, 7by7. That gives us some idea of how much we can trust them.

The first one is Alex Massie's blog on the Spectator. A good source, but one man's opinion, not necessarily endorsed by the journal.

The second is Huffington Post. Enough said.

Having cast aspersions on them both, I tend to agree with Massie's theme. But I would have liked something more authoritative to support it.

It's always nice to know where the links come from, 7by7. That gives us some idea of how much we can trust them.

The first one is Alex Massie's blog on the Spectator. A good source, but one man's opinion, not necessarily endorsed by the journal.

The second is Huffington Post. Enough said.

Having cast aspersions on them both, I tend to agree with Massie's theme. But I would have liked something more authoritative to support it.

To add a more weighty source re the stupidity of immigrant bashing...

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21577431-david-cameron-thinks-tough-talk-immigration-will-boost-conservative-partys-fortunes

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21573128-how-lose-business-and-alienate-potential-trade-partners-no-entry

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21564841-britains-immigration-policy-crippling-business-and-economy-wake-up-mr-cameron-tories

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21568746-foreign-born-are-more-successful-britain-most-places-better-billed

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2013/01/eu-and-immigration

It's always nice to know where the links come from, 7by7. That gives us some idea of how much we can trust them.

The first one is Alex Massie's blog on the Spectator. A good source, but one man's opinion, not necessarily endorsed by the journal.

The second is Huffington Post. Enough said.

Having cast aspersions on them both, I tend to agree with Massie's theme. But I would have liked something more authoritative to support it.

I take on board your points; but:

Following each link will show where it came from.

Both articles do contain links to other sources.

Unfortunately it has proven impossible to find figures which differentiate between contribution based benefits and means tested ones.

Even Channel 4 couldn't do it.

FactCheck Q&A: How many migrants are on the dole?

DWP took a random sample of 9,000 people from the 371,000 (immigrants claiming benefit) – only choosing those from outside the European Economic Area – and found that most (54 per cent) had become British citizens since arriving here. A further 29 per cent had been granted indefinite leave to remain.

Three quarters of people in the sample were traced by the UK Border Agency. Some 98 per cent of those were found to have the right immigration status consisting with claiming benefits legitimately.

What don’t the figures show?

They don’t tell us how many of the estimated 371,000 have paid their own way.

The number includes people who entered the country as long ago as 1975, and it cover some benefits, like Jobseekers’ Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance, which are sometimes “contributory”.

In other words, in some cases they are only payable to people who have built up a minimum level of National Insurance contributions through work.

So some of the 371,000 might have made substantial contributions to the exchequer through tax and National Insurance deductions for many years, and only claimed benefits for a short time.

How many people are in this position? DWP doesn’t know. A spokesman said: “Separate figures for income and contributory based elements are not available.”

The rational certainly wont object to anyone receiving a benefit to which they have contributed or someone who has demonstrated their commitment to the UK by becoming a British citizen or someone who has lived and worked and paid taxes in the UK for many years receiving benefits to which they are entitled.

Unfortunately, not everyone is rational.

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

If you take the step to report an ALLEGED case of fraud you would expect it to be tried in a a court of law. That's how the law works. It relies on evidence and a trial.

You said in an earlier post that there ought to be some new law passed regarding benefit fraudsters. I'm not quite sure what kind of law you want but whatever it is it still relies on those breaking the law being apprehended and tried.

If the new law were to be passed and you knew people that were breaking that law but you continued to refuse to 'grass them up' what good would that law be? How many people would be tried and sentenced because of that new law if they hadn't been caught? You seem to want to be an upstanding citizen without taking any responsibility.

If you know people who are criminals report them. If you aren't willing to then your lack of action speaks for itself.

If you read my post from the 23rd, you will see I did infact report one type of fraud. No action was taken by the authorities.

You accuse people of lacking the will to report benefit fraud, well I for one am not surprised that decent members of society have decided to keep their heads down, they know full well, that they will not be thanked for their action and more importantly they know they can expect minimum support and protection from the authorities if it becomes known that they did the reporting.

I'll dismiss out of hand any left leaning publication just as leftists dismiss right wing ones, just to maintain a quid pro-quo you understand. Here is something that looks objective, but you never know for sure.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

Allow me to quote from the section concerning Sweden, seeing as they have the highest percentage influx of immigrants.

Estimates from dynamic analysis for Sweden suggest that the net fiscal impact of young working age migrants (20 to 30 years of age) is positive at about USD 23,500 per migrant (Storesletten 2003). However, when looking at an “average” new migrant (i.e. taking into account the actual age distribution of new migrants), the study finds a net government loss of about USD 20,500 per migrant.

The overall conclusion of the study was that highly qualified migrants were a net positive, whilst unskilled ones were a net burden, this should be readily apparent considering the overall average unemployment rates for Muslim men and women in 2012 was around two thirds, a staggering increase from 2004 when rates were around 15%. This strongly suggests to me that the qualifications of those coming into the Country has declined markedly just as the numbers have accelerated.

This conclusion is supported by a recent study carried out by migration watch, which states that based on 2011 figures migration was 500,000 greater than previously estimated for the last decade. Hence I'm convinced that the numbers have been understated and comprise of many who fit into the net burden category.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/304

So which left leaning publications are you dismissing?

You could argue that both the Economist and the Huffington Post are left leaning; but you can't put that label onto The Spectator!

If you read my post from the 23rd, you will see I did infact report one type of fraud. No action was taken by the authorities.

You accuse people of lacking the will to report benefit fraud, well I for one am not surprised that decent members of society have decided to keep their heads down, they know full well, that they will not be thanked for their action and more importantly they know they can expect minimum support and protection from the authorities if it becomes known that they did the reporting.

[What happens after you report someone

The DWP Fraud Investigation Service will look at the information you give. If you’ve given enough information, they’ll check the person’s benefit claim.

The Fraud Investigation Service isn’t allowed to tell you the outcome.

Sometimes no action is taken. It might be that the person has declared a change in their circumstances and their benefit is not affected by it.

The Fraud Investigation Service will only take action if they find the person has been committing benefit fraud. Action can include removing a person’s benefits and taking them to court.

(My emphasis)

As also said previously, you do not have to give your name when making a report; so no one, not even the DWP, will know it was you.