A mother-of-five who falsely claimed more than £68,000 in benefits over four years was spared prison after a judge was told there was no-one to care for her kids.Well, at least we’ll get the money ba..
She is currently repaying £13 a fortnight - which at that rate will take 201 years to clear the debt./facepalm
Jim Withyman, mitigating, said she was a woman of previous good character and the claim had not originally been fraudulent. He urged the judge to show mercy and said any jail sentence could be suspended given the circumstances and the young family Grey supported.
“She is embarrassed and ashamed by what she has done. She won’t be back before these courts again.”Well, not for 201 years, anyway…
Judge Walford, who was sitting at Teesside Crown Court, said decent, law abiding, hard working families who struggled to get by without being dishonest would be appalled. He said: “It is sucking money out of the monies available to help the most vulnerable in society.”
The judge suggested the public would want Grey to go jail, to which Mr Withyman replied: “The banks have got off scot-free for the last five years and they have been doing exactly the same thing to the country.”No, they haven’t.
And the fact that you bring this up in ‘mitigation’ of your underclass client makes you, as far as I’m concerned, of less worth to society than her!
Surely she and the kids have spare parts to sell, a kidney a piece, a lobe of liver, a pint of blood every six weeks. That would reduce the debt to the taxpayer!
Sorry Joolz, but the money paid to banks in bailouts would cover the benefits bill for decades.
Also the big headline of "Benefit fraudster" is somewhat misleading, failing to notify change of circumstances in my experience is used as a get out for when the benefits people fuck up.
Costs involved here.
The benefits falsely claimed were £17k per year for 4 years. What made them false was that she had allowed the 'partner' to move in with the family - otherwise she would have been entitled to keep it.
The system militates against this woman marrying the man. We provide a cash incentive for her to stay single, a cash penalty for registering a committed legal status, an inducement to have serial 'uncles' over to stay at the weekend but not too often. We effectively forbid women to try to form stable families with committed male role models. We discourage men from becoming part of a family and then watch the suicide rate rise as they are excluded.
Heck, we'd even rather see the demand for social housing rise than do something sensible like supporting marriage, where people share an address.
The costs of taking the children in to care are as much as £2,500 per child per week in emergency social services accommodation. It goes down to £700 per child per week if foster families can be found.
For fostering that's £3,500 per month, £42,000 per year. But her original fraud was £17,000 p.a, meaning it was still £25,000 cheaper for the taxpayer to have her look after her own children than to pay someone else to do it, even with the fiddling.
Maybe, if we are prepared to pay a stranger £3,500 a month to look after 5 children, we should think again about equalising the economic status of single and married women. Nobody should - or indeed can - be legally forced to marry. But they ought not be penalized for doing so.
2011 costs, see p.75 & 76
If you saw the news yesterday, the benefits of the underclass selling their blood are undermined by the substantial risks.
Just stop her from getting a pension.
On the subject of the bank bailout we did get ownership of the banks it wasn't a complete waste of money.
We are not getting ownership of this woman (not that I am advocating slavery).
Woman on a raft is right about this
"The system militates against this woman marrying the man"
"...we did get ownership of the banks it wasn't a complete waste of money..."
In itself, true:- but what penalties were faced by the greedy bastards who knowingly broke/bent laws solely to enrich themselves and subsequently engaged in massive tax evasion?
Oh yes, honours and a role in government. And even more of our money.
"Surely she and the kids have spare parts to sell..."
She doesn't appear to be using her brain...
"...the money paid to banks in bailouts would cover the benefits bill for decades."
You say that as though maintaining people on welfare was a good thing.
"The system militates against this woman marrying the man. "
That's because the man is supposed to pay his way AND contribute to hers. Not because both of them are supposed to earn single people's allowance!
"We are not getting ownership of this woman..."
And why would we want it?
Post a Comment