Mother Sandra Edwards, who claimed more than £11,000 in benefits she was not entitled to, has been spared an immediate prison sentence.
And why was she not entitled to them?
The 45-year-old, pictured, failed to tell the authorities her partner had moved in with her, North Staffordshire magistrates heard yesterday.
Ah. The usual.
Mr Ali added that Edwards has no previous convictions, but was cautioned in 2008 for failing to declare a change of her circumstances. That involved her not declaring she was working while claiming benefits.
Ah. The
other usual.
Mike Plaskitt, mitigating, said Edwards was genuinely remorseful and apologetic.
Well, yes, no doubt. I bet she was the
first time, as well…
"I think you can be very confident that she will not be repeating any further offending," said Mr Plaskitt.
Why? She’s already repeated it once!
4 comments:
I'm all confusled.
I want to encourage people to form stable partnerships - possibly even get married - because I believe that is better for the whole of society. I don't want to use coercion and penalties because that's odious and anyway, it won't work. Besides, it's not for everyone.
However, at the moment we give benefits to individuals but take those benefits away if they form secure partnerships thus weakening eactly those arrangements which benefit everyone in the long run, even if you don't have one yourself.
We want people to work if they can for dozens of reasons. But at the bottom of the labour market there are poverty traps whereby nobody in their right mind would go to work for any more than 16 hours a week because, as Mark Wadsworth has illustrated in the past, it pays so little it just isn't worth it.
If benefits are going to be paid at all then it makes no sense to do so in a way which penalises work.
So here we have a woman being penalized for forming a relationship and given an extra kicking for managing to get work - what work will it have been? catering, cleaning? - all to the tune of £11k, in a country where MPs cheerfully sell-on the experience they gained at our expense while fiddling their expenses and milking an extra property off the public, having spent years regarding it as 'part of the package'. Nadine couldn't even remember where she lives, as she has so many houses.
I'm having terrible trouble engaging my rage at the person rather than the 'one law for them, one law for us' attitude of the authorities. Two words: Tony McNulty.
"Magistrates sentenced Edwards to four months in prison, suspended for 12 months, with supervision and 110 hours' unpaid work. She must also pay £125 towards prosecution costs."
So she gets to keep the eleven grand? Nice (non-)work if you can get it.
"I think you can be very confident that she will not be repeating any further offending," said Mr Plaskitt.
Is that English? Surely she'd have to offend again before she could repeat any further offending?
"However, at the moment we give benefits to individuals but take those benefits away if they form secure partnerships..."
But what else could we pay benefits on, that would eliminate this puzzle?
"So she gets to keep the eleven grand?"
So it would seem. But it might be that the story has left out that bit of his suimming up.
Post a Comment