Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Benefit sanction targets


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 10:26 AM

Now, there have been many articles over the last couple of years from government ministers and all sorts of others in the DWP denying that there are targets for applying sanctions to benefit claimants.  The most recent was a couple of days ago in the Guardian.

 

I was watching Britain on the Fiddle that was on BBC1 on Wednesday night at 9pm.  At 34m08s in you get a nice shot of the benefits investigation team whiteboard with these lovely targets on them:

SanctionsTargets.jpg

The word "Target" might not be written there specifically but it's very obvious that these are actually targets.

 

Surely in the case of this department that deal with serious infractions of the benefits system that there's no need for targets in this area and is actually contrary to the needs of justice.  For example, if you have someone who would normally get a caution but the department is approaching month end and are a bit shy of their prosecution or sanction targets then they get a far more severe penalty just to meet an artificial target.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:06 PM

A friend's daughter is an experienced office supervisor. A few years ago, she was made redundant  when her company was closed down. She got a temporary job in the Halifax job centre and, after a few months, was asked to transfer to the Bradford job centre, where there was a heavy workload and a shortage of staff.

 

She noted that some people were claiming under different names in both Bradford and Halifax. She reported the fact but, at that time, nothing was done because there were insufficient funds to mount in-depth surveillance operations. The DWP considered it cheaper to keep paying out.

 

If benefit-cheating is widespread, you can't blame local and central government departments for setting up performance targets. The only drawback is that, whenever targets are being set, the investigators go for easily-targetted individuals (e.g. people caught working on the side) rather than difficult targets (e.g. people just falsely claiming benefits and not doing any other activities).


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#3 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:18 PM

 

 

If benefit-cheating is widespread, y

 

It isn't.

 

HTH.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#4 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:29 PM

...


Edited by archibald, 08 November 2013 - 08:29 PM.


#5 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:36 PM

It isn't.

 

HTH.

 

It is.

 

HTH.

 

... ' if we combine the central estimates from both departments, the total amount of money lost to fraud across the benefits system was a little over £2bn in 2011/12.'

 

http://blogs.channel...rspective/15796

 

Fraud  = ~ £2 billion

Population = ~ 60 million

Households = ~ 20 million

 

Cost per household  = ~ £100 per annum


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#6 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:22 PM

 

 

Cost per household  = ~ £100 per annum

 

 

!If we limit the analysis to those figures given in the fraud and error estimates (see table 2.1), the £1,285 estimate for the average taxpayer contributes towards the benefits system seems nearer the mark. Of this, approximately £10.28 could be identified as the portion lost to fraud (0.8 per cent)," (Fact Check)

 

And either way: basic errors, and indeed unclaimed benefits, are higher and more widespread.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#7 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 10:02 PM

 

Link doesn't work.

 

Somebody's stats must be dodgy; there's a discrepancy of 300% between your claimed figures and mine.

 

If every person in the country, not just every taxpayer, was only losing £10 per annum, the total loss wouldn't be £2billion


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#8 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,422 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 10:05 PM

THE FACTS ABOUT BENEFITS.

The actual Benefit fraud rate is 0.7%; or roughly £1.2bn a year. The amount UNDERpaid in error each year is roughly £1.3bn The amount of unclaimed benefits each year is £16bn

The total amount spent on out-of-work benefits each year is £20.4bn, or 12.8% of the Welfare budget. (we spend 3x as much on Pensions, for example)

99.2% of all out-of-work benefit claims are made by British-born citizens. 99.3% of all claims are legitimate.

Over 60% of people on Housing Benefit are IN WORK, because it's increasingly low-wage subsidy (93% of new claimants in 2012 were in work; this is a situation that's clearly getting worse).

LUNEW.jpg


#9 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 09:04 AM

THE FACTS ABOUT BENEFITS.
The actual Benefit fraud rate is 0.7%; or roughly £1.2bn a year. The amount UNDERpaid in error each year is roughly £1.3bn The amount of unclaimed benefits each year is £16bn
The total amount spent on out-of-work benefits each year is £20.4bn, or 12.8% of the Welfare budget. (we spend 3x as much on Pensions, for example)
99.2% of all out-of-work benefit claims are made by British-born citizens. 99.3% of all claims are legitimate.
Over 60% of people on Housing Benefit are IN WORK, because it's increasingly low-wage subsidy (93% of new claimants in 2012 were in work; this is a situation that's clearly getting worse).


Whoa there mate, we'll have none of this here, don't you realise that anecdotes outweigh fact. Your numbers are irrelevant, because my sisters-cousins-uncles-son, knows someone on his street who works and claims benefits, and speaks in a foreign accent.

#10 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,797 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 09:20 AM

She noted that some people were claiming under different names in both Bradford and Halifax. She reported the fact but, at that time, nothing was done because there were insufficient funds to mount in-depth surveillance operations. The DWP considered it cheaper to keep paying out.


It mirrors the CBA attitude that our fabulous boys in blue use when they cite "not in the public interest. I don't doubt the validity of your story.

Some would say that this is a pragmatic approach by the DWP, but I think it's dereliction of duty.

Fraud is not as widespread as some sections of the media and the nutter right parties would have us believe, but it's immoral and it's equally unethical not to chase it down.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#11 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:17 AM

THE FACTS ABOUT BENEFITS.

1. The actual Benefit fraud rate is 0.7%; or roughly £1.2bn a year.

2. 99.2% of all out-of-work benefit claims are made by British-born citizens. 99.3% of all claims are legitimate.

 

 

1. Even if that is true, and why would the Civil Service quote £2billion, it equates to £20 for every person in Britain. I begrudge giving £20 to cheating scroungers and I object to my daughter (who has three children) arguably contributing £80 to them.

 

2. Bradford is at least one-quarter full of British-born citizens from non-traditional ethnic groupings; in social terms that  is a minor fact but is conveniently used as an  inclusive device to deflect attention from the major issue ... religious grouping.

Many (most??) Moslems marry their cousins and the community has a high prevalence of importing non-educated and non-anglophone spouses from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The indigenous Bradford Moslems  have not, as a social grouping, achieved the educational standards of other ethnic groupings and have a much higher rate of unemployment. They are far more likely (typically?) to bring their children up in a non-English-speaking home. Their offspring have a higher incidence of congenital disorders, particularly deafness.

 

In short, the Bradford Moslems are commonly considered by the city's non Moslems to place a much higher burden on the benefits, social security, education and health services than contemporary religious groupings. I genuinely think this to be true, but am willing to retract that opinion if the government and council provide clear evidence to the contrary.

 

Whenever you fill in an official form or job application, you are required to complete a social / religious  profiling form. Central and local government has these statistics and could readily produce its figures by additional social groupings that are more specific than "Ethnic Asian" or British-Born". I wonder why they don't.

 

Slag me off as much as you want, but also: -

 -  if you get the opportunity, be prepared to discuss the issue with any Bradfordian of Hidu, Sikh or West Indian ethnicity.

 - ignoring this issue does no favours whatsoever for young muslim children who will endure family-applied stumbling blocks to their chances of social and career progress.


Edited by Wolford6, 09 November 2013 - 11:27 AM.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#12 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,797 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:22 AM

Here goes Wolford6 with the word muslim again.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#13 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,422 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:38 PM

Here goes Wolford6 with the word muslim again.


Yeah, and his usual combination of untruths, half truths, wilfull misunderstanding and outright bigoted prejuduce. Sickening!

LUNEW.jpg


#14 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 6,152 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:13 PM

Oh FFS!

 

And yet another thread descends into an anti muslim thread once again by the usual suspects.

 

Didn't we once have a specific thread for that sort of thing so as to leave the others open to debate the relevant subjects without being derailed (again). 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#15 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:16 PM

Yeah, and his usual combination of untruths, half truths, wilfull misunderstanding and outright bigoted prejuduce. Sickening!


Perhaps you could point out which things he said that aren't true.

#16 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:28 PM

1. Even if that is true, and why would the Civil Service quote £2billion, it equates to £20 for every person in Britain. I begrudge giving £20 to cheating scroungers and I object to my daughter (who has three children) arguably contributing £80 to them.

2. Bradford is at least one-quarter full of British-born citizens from non-traditional ethnic groupings; in social terms that is a minor fact but is conveniently used as an inclusive device to deflect attention from the major issue ... religious grouping.
Many (most??) Moslems marry their cousins and the community has a high prevalence of importing non-educated and non-anglophone spouses from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The indigenous Bradford Moslems have not, as a social grouping, achieved the educational standards of other ethnic groupings and have a much higher rate of unemployment. They are far more likely (typically?) to bring their children up in a non-English-speaking home. Their offspring have a higher incidence of congenital disorders, particularly deafness.

In short, the Bradford Moslems are commonly considered by the city's non Moslems to place a much higher burden on the benefits, social security, education and health services than contemporary religious groupings. I genuinely think this to be true, but am willing to retract that opinion if the government and council provide clear evidence to the contrary.

Whenever you fill in an official form or job application, you are required to complete a social / religious profiling form. Central and local government has these statistics and could readily produce its figures by additional social groupings that are more specific than "Ethnic Asian" or British-Born". I wonder why they don't.

Slag me off as much as you want, but also: -
- if you get the opportunity, be prepared to discuss the issue with any Bradfordian of Hidu, Sikh or West Indian ethnicity.
- ignoring this issue does no favours whatsoever for young muslim children who will endure family-applied stumbling blocks to their chances of social and career progress.


It that from that well know source your sister's, cousin's, uncle's, son who backs up most of the general anecdotes.

#17 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:51 PM

Produce some figures that say otherwise.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#18 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,646 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:16 PM

1. Even if that is true, and why would the Civil Service quote £2billion, it equates to £20 for every person in Britain. I begrudge giving £20 to cheating scroungers and I object to my daughter (who has three children) arguably contributing £80 to them.

2. Bradford is at least one-quarter full of British-born citizens from non-traditional ethnic groupings; in social terms that is a minor fact but is conveniently used as an inclusive device to deflect attention from the major issue ... religious grouping.
Many (most??) Moslems marry their cousins and the community has a high prevalence of importing non-educated and non-anglophone spouses from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The indigenous Bradford Moslems have not, as a social grouping, achieved the educational standards of other ethnic groupings and have a much higher rate of unemployment. They are far more likely (typically?) to bring their children up in a non-English-speaking home. Their offspring have a higher incidence of congenital disorders, particularly deafness.

In short, the Bradford Moslems are commonly considered by the city's non Moslems to place a much higher burden on the benefits, social security, education and health services than contemporary religious groupings. I genuinely think this to be true, but am willing to retract that opinion if the government and council provide clear evidence to the contrary.

Whenever you fill in an official form or job application, you are required to complete a social / religious profiling form. Central and local government has these statistics and could readily produce its figures by additional social groupings that are more specific than "Ethnic Asian" or British-Born". I wonder why they don't.

Slag me off as much as you want, but also: -
- if you get the opportunity, be prepared to discuss the issue with any Bradfordian of Hidu, Sikh or West Indian ethnicity.
- ignoring this issue does no favours whatsoever for young muslim children who will endure family-applied stumbling blocks to their chances of social and career progress.

Here we go again

Anyway what is a traditional British ethnic grouping?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#19 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,837 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:33 PM

White christian.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#20 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:38 PM

Anyway what is a traditional British ethnic grouping?

 

Druid.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users