See England take on the best at the 2017 Rugby League World Cup

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Benefit sanction targets

102 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If benefit-cheating is widespread, y

 

It isn't.

 

HTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796

 

Fraud  = ~ £2 billion

Population = ~ 60 million

Households = ~ 20 million

 

Cost per household  = ~ £100 per annum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes Wolford6 with the word muslim again.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway what is a traditional British ethnic grouping?

 

Druid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Druid.

 

Obviously, there was paganism before Christianity and I'm certainly not saying that Christianity has been all good news. We have also had external influence by Romans, Danes, Saxons etc.

However,  I would have thought that, essentially, modern British society has its roots from the days when we broke free of being ruled as a minor dominion of France.

 

I'm not any kind of expert on this, and I'm willing to learn otherwise,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White christian.

I don't fit that grouping. I've lived in this country all my life. What steps should I follow to intergrate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's me gone then.

 

 

Oh, that's really sad.

 

Have you told your Dad?

:tongue:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fit that grouping. I've lived in this country all my life. What steps should I follow to intergrate?

 

 

You could start by learning to spell integrate.

;)

 

I am not saying that we should have any kind of set societal structure and we don't have a fixed constitution. However, there is a tradition of tolerance and fair play and an understanding that we should make an individual contribution to Britain and not milk other peoples contributions. I  would hope that decent people of whatever cultural background would subscribe to these principles, and strive to maintain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.