Williams, 57, of Tiverton Street, Cleethorpes, was jailed for four months after admitting making a false representation to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and dishonestly failing to cancel a wrongful credit.Four months for £28,000 seems like a damn good remuneration to me – it’s nearly my entire annual salary, after all!
Of course, he’ll have to pay it back, right?
Grimsby Crown Court heard that Williams had begun paying back the money at a rate of £3.30 per week – meaning it would take 200 years for him to repay the amount in full.I…
I just….
Prosecutor Chris Tonge said that to pay at a higher rate would cause “undue hardship” to the defendant.Yes, well, too bloody bad! It’s supposed to be a punishment, FFS!
Craig Lowe, mitigating, said his client had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and was of previous good character.How many hardworking families have had to postpone or cancel holidays this year, I wonder?
The vast majority of the money had been spent on everyday living expenses.
“Save for a number of holidays, he has not lived a life of luxury,” he said.
While we cosset and pander to the likes of Mr Williams?
“Save for a number of holidays, he has not lived a life of luxury,” he said.
ReplyDeleteSort of like someone saying, “Save for a number of burglaries, he has not lived a life crime,” or perhaps “Save for a number of cigarettes, he has not smoked,”
Now, I don't want anyone to starve or freeze, but I do object to paying for other people's holidays.
Williams submitted a claim to the DWP for income support, in which he falsely stated that his wife was not working, when in fact she was employed as a carer by Penderels Trust.
ReplyDeleteWilliams also failed to inform the DWP of a change in circumstances when his wife stopped working for Penderels and got a job in a pub.
As mentioned previously, if we want to sort this out we are going to have to define benefits in relation to the individual, regardless of the circumstances of their partners.
If Williams was entitled to benefits it should be on the basis of him working or not, regardless of what anyone else in his household is doing or it means Mrs W should never have bothered to find work in the first place.
It's not as if Mr W has any legal right to know about her wages and work status, nor she his, so to hold him legally liable for not disclosing information he doesn't have a right to or any way of discovering is bizarre.
Yes, he's a cheat, but the system is wrong and rewards either not working or cheating, whilst penalizing telling the truth and going to work.
"
ReplyDeleteIt's not as if Mr W has any legal right to know about her wages and work status, nor she his, so to hold him legally liable for not disclosing information he doesn't have a right to or any way of discovering is bizarre. "
This ^^^^. WOAR is talking sense ...yet again (Bad habit that, dear :P).
“Save for a number of holidays, he has not lived a life of luxury,” he said.
ReplyDeleteI've been to Cleethorpes. I can see why the man needed a holiday from there. I mean, it's got a beach (of sorts) and arcades and a fairground and candy floss stalls and...
Okay, he needed to get to civilisation from time to time.
XX he has not lived a life of luxury,.....The vast majority of the money had been spent on everyday living expenses.XX
ReplyDeleteWhat people get from the dole is "what you need to live on". Therefore EVERY penny MORE than that is, by LEGAL DEFINITION "luxury".
"A number of holidays"???
ReplyDeleteI haven't had a single holiday for years...
"As mentioned previously, if we want to sort this out we are going to have to define benefits in relation to the individual, regardless of the circumstances of their partners."
ReplyDeleteI don't see how we could ever do that.
If you're granted benefits on the basis that you live alone and have no-one paying the bills, there has to be some method for ensuring that you don't 'profit' by then getting someone else to chip in.
"I've been to Cleethorpes. I can see why the man needed a holiday from there."
:D
"I haven't had a single holiday for years..."
Quite! Ever feel you're in the wrong 'job'..?
there has to be some method for ensuring that you don't 'profit' by then getting someone else to chip in.
ReplyDeleteWhy? It isn't the state's business if you act cooperatively or just get lucky. In general it is a good thing if people act cooperatively since it means they take on care for each other and are slower to appeal to the rest of us for support. If we can, we want to encourage that rather than penalize it. The 'nobody should profit' argument just means Mrs Williams shouldn't even try to go to work, to the ultimate detriment of us all.
The state's job is to provide the safety net for individuals, although we can debate what size the mesh of the net should be or if it should be there at all.
What I'm arguing for is that the basis has to be individual entitlement which isn't affected by what the person next to you gets; equality of entitlment, not equality of outcome.
For example, suppose you are beaten up in the street. You'd expect the emergency services and maybe even the police to attend on the basis that you are an individual in need.
If the paramedic turned up and demanded to know if you were married or cohabiting and if so your significant other can pay for the ambulance, then you'd be annoyed.
If you then snapped, untruthfully "No, I'm not married" and were later prosecuted on the basis that you had misrepresented your legal status and had an obligation to disclose it, would you really accept that a benefit (NHS transport) should be predicated on whether you happened to have a husband around?
Every time we move away from personal flat entitlement and start looking at outcomes, then arguing that some folks have an unfair advantage merely because they got lucky or acted cooperatively, we encourage gaming of the system and strengthen the hand of the state.
Mark Wadsworth argues his Citizen's Income scheme would work, although there is a debate about who is a citizen.
Benefit thieves do it for the money. They should know they will have to pay back twice what they stole, and that they will get no benefits until they have.
ReplyDeleteAny benefit thieves who don't go to prison should also have to do community service.
Day in day out people like this appear at http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/