Ellington, 27, had been legitimately claiming tax credits and child support for her eldest child, aged two, but then began submitting fraudulent claims for both children following their July 2004 adoption, after one was abused by her boyfriend.By which time, she's shovelled some £60,541 into her veins...
The deception was not discovered until April 2009.
Oh, and the deception wasn't uncovered by the departments charged with ensuring this sort of fraud is identified, either. It was as a result of a drugs op by the police:
The scam was uncovered when Ellington and Grainger were arrested in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, in 2009 as part of a class-A drug sting called Operation Laser.*sigh*
Last year Grainger, 31, received a three-year jail term for conspiracy to supply drugs, while Ellington escaped with a community sentence.
Will questions ever be asked, and lessons learned? Doubtful.
Peter Freeman, defending Ellington at Warwick Crown Court last Tuesday, said she had been a ‘proud mum’ when her first child had been born in August 2002.Not a suituation which lasted long (if at all):
Her second child was born shortly before she was jailed for cruelty towards the first, and she then applied for further payments.And no alarm-bells rang? No-one said 'Hang on a minute..'?
Speaking to a local newspaper before she was sentenced last week, Ellington said: ‘I know I’ve done wrong and I’ll accept whatever punishment is given to me. But I have had a lot going on in my life.She got a year. She'll do, what, 6 months, maybe?
'It’s complicated and everyone makes mistakes in their lives. I just want to put this behind me.’
And the officials (mis)handling her case? What will they get?
What will they get?
ReplyDeleteThat's a rhetorical question, right?
She certainly claimed far more than she was entitled to, and on the face of it is not a particularly productive contributor to the common weal. It looks as if she deserves to do time. 'Ang about a minute though....doesn't that also apply, in spades, to many of the denizens of the Palace of Westminster?
ReplyDeleteIs it not beyond time that she was sterilised .. if only to prevent the gene pool from becoming even further dissipated ?
ReplyDeleteMethinks eugenics is nowhere near as bad as its been painted ..
The kid had ciggie burns on his fingers!
ReplyDeleteBirching and 10 years would seem appropriate.
Captain Haddock: A dangerous, slippery slope argument, that.
ReplyDeleteWe've already had experience of eugenics. Most of us don't want to go back there.
And who decides what are fit candidates for being eugenicised?
"A dangerous, slippery slope argument, that" ...
ReplyDeleteDruggie, Child Abuser, Thief ? ..
What's not to like about ridding the world of her & her ilk .. and making sure they don't breed more like them ?
I know which "slippery slope" I'd prefer to be going down ..
"That's a rhetorical question, right?"
ReplyDeleteSadly, yes :(
"'Ang about a minute though....doesn't that also apply, in spades, to many of the denizens of the Palace of Westminster?"
It does indeed, few of whom are any more salubrious...
"The kid had ciggie burns on his fingers!
Birching and 10 years would seem appropriate."
I'd go along with that.