For those of us unfit to work

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

If you actually did bother to read the posts, then you would understand. A public limited company is not owned or controlled by the tax payer or government. It is owned by individuals or organisations who own shares. So the government do not have any control over executives bonuses (which is what the conversation started about.

So get your facts right.

While we're on the subject of getting facts right let me simplify this even further for you Tim.

I did not say or suggest that a public limited company is is "owned or controlled by the tax payer or government". I merely contested your assertion that "a bank is a private business".

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Just because I am disgusted by someones actions, then it doesn't mean that I have to drop them in it. I can understand where you are coming from, but unless you know the circumstances, then you can't really comment.

I can say that I was really happy when they did lose the DLA and the car, that myself and many other tax payers were paying for. And I wish it had happened a long time a go. But for circumstances that I can't reveal, I couldn't be the one to drop them in it.

Funny that, because earlier in this thread you agreed with Hugh when he said that to do nothing about benefit fraud was a cop out.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

This is where you couldn't be more wrong. I am probably one of the least prejudice people you could possibly know. If you had read my posts, and the ones I was replying to, then you would know that all I want is justice, and for the people who abuse the system to lose their benefits, and the people who deserve it to get all the help they need.

And your way of ensuring that this comes about is to turn a blind eye to fraud because you may be inconvenienced by reporting it?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You are commenting on what I write in the warped way that you choose to interpret it. If you had more of an open mind, and didn't just think the worst of people, then you would understand what I said.

Tim, with all due respect, as has been evidenced in our exchanges in this thread even you don't understand what you are saying. You trip yourself up and contradict yourself time and again and when you realize you've made a faux pas you try to change the context of the issue at hand.

Given your comments regarding your neighbour it's a bit rich you accusing me of thinking the worst of people.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Was that supposed to be funny???
You know exactly what I mean.

No, it was a factual response to your suggestion - obviously lost on you.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

They are shares. Anyone can buy shares as an investment. Unless you have a huge chunk of them, then you don't get much in the way of voting rights. So they are still a PLC, and not a nationalised business.

Reality check - taxpayers money was pumped into them to stop them going bankrupt, and another £500 billion was used as guarantees - that is not "buying shares as an investment".

Could you please point out when in this century, what other major industries the UK Government, using taxpayers money, have spent £50 billion in buying shares in, and guaranteeing another £500 billion of taxpayers money?

Reality check number two - UK Government has an 83% shareholding in RBS and 41% in Llloyds/HBOS; that sounds like a "huge chunk" to me....

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Reality check - taxpayers money was pumped into them to stop them going bankrupt, and another £500 billion was used as guarantees - that is not "buying shares as an investment".

Could you please point out when in this century, what other major industries the UK Government, using taxpayers money, have spent £50 billion in buying shares in, and guaranteeing another £500 billion of taxpayers money?

Reality check number two - UK Government has an 83% shareholding in RBS and 41% in Llloyds/HBOS; that sounds like a "huge chunk" to me....

Just read the start of the conversation, rather than cutting in half way through.

Then do some research yourself.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

While we're on the subject of getting facts right let me simplify this even further for you Tim.

I did not say or suggest that a public limited company is is "owned or controlled by the tax payer or government". I merely contested your assertion that "a bank is a private business".



Funny that, because earlier in this thread you agreed with Hugh when he said that to do nothing about benefit fraud was a cop out.



And your way of ensuring that this comes about is to turn a blind eye to fraud because you may be inconvenienced by reporting it?



Tim, with all due respect, as has been evidenced in our exchanges in this thread even you don't understand what you are saying. You trip yourself up and contradict yourself time and again and when you realize you've made a faux pas you try to change the context of the issue at hand.

Given your comments regarding your neighbour it's a bit rich you accusing me of thinking the worst of people.



No, it was a factual response to your suggestion - obviously lost on you.

If you want a conversation, then have one. But all you are doing is trying to cause trouble by twisting things around.

erm, I was replying to the points you made, which were factually incorrect.

You stated

A bank is a private business, and is not funded by taxes.....simples!!!

What were the £50 billion of bail-out and £500 billion of guarantees, if not funding*?

And my comments are factually based (unless, of course, I am wrong in that the UK Government did not provide up to £50 billion in taxpayers money to bail out the banks and another £500 billion of taxpayers money in guarantees, and also own 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds/HBOS?).

*OED definition of funding - "money provided, especially by an organization or government, for a particular purpose"

[joglynne]

I find it difficult to reconcile someone saying they want benefit abuse to be stopped yet not being willing to do anything about someone who blatantly boasts that they are milking the system.

So I thought I would like to clarify something that I do have professional experience of. If anyone wants to reports benefit abuse they can do so anonymously either by writing in to their local benefits office or to the relevant office dealing with a specific benefit. or they can phone in using the dedicated Fraud Hotline.

An anonymous report is taken seriously but obviously you must be willing to disclose some relevant details of why you consider the claimant is not entitled to the benefit so that the Fraud Team have something to investigate. At no point will you be drawn into the limelight as the whistle blower and NO benefit will be effected until the case is investigated and, if proven necessary, the entitlement to benefit is cancelled. Just saying someone is fiddling will not result in any action being taken as there is neither the man power nor financial resources available to investigate a case where a claimant merely looks too well to be claiming benefit.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

erm, I was replying to the points you made, which were factually incorrect.

You stated What were the £50 billion of bail-out and £500 billion of guarantees, if not funding*?

And my comments are factually based (unless, of course, I am wrong in that the UK Government did not provide up to £50 billion in taxpayers money to bail out the banks and another £500 billion of taxpayers money in guarantees, and also own 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds/HBOS?).

*OED definition of funding - "money provided, especially by an organization or government, for a particular purpose"

A bail out is not normal funding. It's a rescue package. And it doesn't give the government any say in directors bonuses, which is what this conversation all started about.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by joglynne

I find it difficult to reconcile someone saying they want benefit abuse to be stopped yet not being willing to do anything about someone who blatantly boasts that they are milking the system.

So I thought I would like to clarify something that I do have professional experience of. If anyone wants to reports benefit abuse they can do so anonymously either by writing in to their local benefits office or to the relevant office dealing with a specific benefit. or they can phone in using the dedicated Fraud Hotline.

An anonymous report is taken seriously but obviously you must be willing to disclose some relevant details of why you consider the claimant is not entitled to the benefit so that the Fraud Team have something to investigate. At no point will you be drawn into the limelight as the whistle blower and NO benefit will be effected until the case is investigated and, if proven necessary, the entitlement to benefit is cancelled. Just saying someone is fiddling will not result in any action being taken as there is neither the man power nor financial resources available to investigate a case where a claimant merely looks too well to be claiming benefit.

I know exactly what you are saying. But you don't know the very difficult circumstances.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by joglynne

I find it difficult to reconcile someone saying they want benefit abuse to be stopped yet not being willing to do anything about someone who blatantly boasts that they are milking the system.

So I thought I would like to clarify something that I do have professional experience of. If anyone wants to reports benefit abuse they can do so anonymously either by writing in to their local benefits office or to the relevant office dealing with a specific benefit. or they can phone in using the dedicated Fraud Hotline.

An anonymous report is taken seriously but obviously you must be willing to disclose some relevant details of why you consider the claimant is not entitled to the benefit so that the Fraud Team have something to investigate. At no point will you be drawn into the limelight as the whistle blower and NO benefit will be effected until the case is investigated and, if proven necessary, the entitlement to benefit is cancelled. Just saying someone is fiddling will not result in any action being taken as there is neither the man power nor financial resources available to investigate a case where a claimant merely looks too well to be claiming benefit.

Have done that on 2 occasions now

I can also confirm they do not give out your details and they do deal with the thief who is stealing benefits.

[joglynne]

Be aware though that from experience I can say that many complaints are investigated and found to have no substance as many claimants are reported without the whistle blower knowing the full extent of claimants circumstances. This happen quite often in the case of disability claimants who can look perfectly able to work and do not all disclose the full extent of their disabilities to all and sundry.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by joglynne

Be aware though that from experience I can say that many complaints are investigated and found to have no substance as many claimants are reported without the whistle blower knowing the full extent of claimants circumstances. This happen quite often in the case of disability claimants who can look perfectly able to work and do not all disclose the full extent of their disabilities to all and sundry.

Both of the ones i reported were real and have been dealt with, Both were claiming for benefits that they were not entitled to whilst working and it was a family thing as both were the same family at different address's.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

A bail out is not normal funding. It's a rescue package. And it doesn't give the government any say in directors bonuses, which is what this conversation all started about.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------



I know exactly what you are saying. But you don't know the very difficult circumstances.

Could you point out where you stated "normal", please? Your post stated

A bank is a private business, and is not funded by taxes

And do you honestly believe that that an entity that holds 83% of a company's shareholding doesn't have any say in renumeration?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could you point out where you stated "normal", please? Your post stated
And do you honestly believe that that an entity that holds 83% of a company's shareholding doesn't have any say in renumeration?

AS a moderator you should set an example, not start arguments.

I have answered your question, so go and argue with someone else.

I suggest that before we get to the abusive stage that some of us need to explore the ignore tab or that they step away from this thread.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

AS a moderator you should set an example, not start arguments.

I have answered your question, so go and argue with someone else.

Yeah God forsake anyone who makes any mistakes/errors etc here, even ones that really doesn't make much of any difference to the main point of this thread.

I may not agree with a lot of things but there seems to be more and more nit picking / point scoring post just for the sake of it, which doesn't add anything to the original threads.

It's easier not to get involved these days.

Edit
Sorry Maggy, I didn't see your post till I posted mine.

[TakeCare]

I came on here tonight and just posted on another thread seeking advice. Skimming through the forum I came across this discussion. Like with everything there are different viewpoints.

For those that think the 'reforms' are going too fast, too deep, would you please sign this http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20968 and share the link with friends.

The lady who submitted it is blind, her hubby has serious disabilities too. These are her words....

We were determined to attend the Hardest Hit rally in Edinburgh. Determined, in spite of disability, to stand with the others who had made the long and difficult journey. Determined to show we were united as one voice against the vicious cuts we are all enduring. We knew there were many thousands who couldn't make it. Disability, ill health, providing care for a loved one, or cost would prevent them coming. We made it.
To the many there and those who came in spirit..........this petition is for us all.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

What is making me laugh is that, that pillock Cameron has come up with another brilliant idea to get people back to work - make them work 30 hours per free for there benefit, not being funny, there won't be a very a long queue.