Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
The Future State of Welfare with John Humphrys - BBC2 Thursday 27 October
We have also been informed that you will have been overpaid £25k Carers Allowance if the person you care for dies and you don’t report it for 6 months. Can’t wait for the calls from carers asking where their £50k is.
Some legitimate stuff about blue badge abuse and a catch up on the misuse of social housing - assuming the alleged examples are true.
As far as the DWP administered IB goes, nobody ever asks in these types of programmes how the alleged fraudsters got through their respective PCA or WCA.. The message seems to be that the DWP have rubbish systems, so if you fancy a punt go ahead, you’re unlikely to be nabbed. The other impact, as we all know, is that legitimate claimants will be nervous about claiming.
We were told that fraud across ALL public bodies amounted to £22bn, but once again it was social security claimants in the spotlight. No doubt that figure will be morphed into £22bn of social security fraud in the public’s imagination. I assume that fraud also happens at the BBC. Let’s have a BBC programme about that for a change.
I didn’t see anything wrong with the programme.
It made the allegations about Greek society look tame.
It was bit previous as its pre-conviction and hence, trial by TV. However, it would be hard to wriggle out of I’d have thought. As those people using grannies/mums blue badge for themselves found.
Yes it would have been nice to see what a sea faring, cycling, French house builder had put on the IB50. Likewise the publican whom neglected to mention his rather nice harbour side pub and the work he did regardless of the disability but I presume that would ruin the criminal cases.
What I drew from the programme was if that you should be suspicious of people who like yachts and the sea, golf and Betley drivers as they are probably a benefit thief.
Play through
Tricky one for me. I’ve got two marinas and a few golf clubs on my doorstep, plus that bloke in the Kingswear pub only 4 miles away. I’ll have to introduce special measures before I give people appointments in future.
Maybe Motability are missing a trick here. How about swapping your high rate mobility for an ocean going yacht instead of a boring Astra?
Maybe Motability are missing a trick here. How about swapping your high rate mobility for an ocean going yacht instead of a boring Astra?
Surely you mean an executive sector vehicle such as a BMW X1?
Have to say not a high point in public broadcasting. Ok, it was never going to be An Ascent of Man or Civilisation, but its repetitive plot and predictable ending meant it didn’t even get close to the Antiques Roadshow. It occupies for me a place somewhere between Eldorado and Weatherwatch. It actually made John Humphry’s programme last week look like a good World In Action.
Still, it was a relief to be reminded that the City does not have a monopoly on liars and cheats.
However, I couldn’t help feeling sorry for the yachtsman, the pub owner and the amateur league footballer. If there was any consistency between their treatment and that of their self interested peers in the City whose behaviour they were copying, the ending should have shown the tax payer helping to build, free of charge, another French farmhouse for the yachtsman, perhaps buying him another yacht (Crumpet 3?), hell even throwing in high rate care component too; you know, to bail him out.
The programme wasn’t as clever as it thought it was either as it obviously forgot to mention his “118 118” permitted work.
[ Edited: 5 Nov 2011 at 11:23 am by Tom H ]I’m just bored with it all now. I got in halfway through the programme. God blimey, it was about as riveting as the test card. I’ve no sympathy whatsoever for those committing benefit fraud and who are living a rather comfortable life and I hope they are made to repay every penny. However, seen and heard it all before and, I imagine, have most of the population by now. Pointless programme unless you see it as part of the wider media attack on benefit claimants in general.
edited to correct typo
[ Edited: 4 Nov 2011 at 01:20 pm by nevip ]Didnt even watch it as i dont believe for 1 minute (following last weeks John humphrey thing) that it would be fair, accurate or balanced. Reading the above posts i was probably right!
What I drew from the programme was if that you should be suspicious of people who like yachts and the sea, golf and Betley drivers as they are probably a benefit thief.
I remember the old S manual section on redundancy payments and deprivation of capital, which differentiated buying new and second hand cars on the basis of whether people had previously bought new cars, going on to say
“You should always examine carefully such purchases as yachts and aeroplanes.”
[ Edited: 4 Nov 2011 at 02:46 pm by Gareth Morgan ]I remember the days when the DHSS used to make more routine home visit claimants and then decide that they had expensive items like antique furniture or a ‘luxury car’ which should be treated as capital rather than a disregarded personal item (although wehn I worked at the DHSS I don’t remeber any training courses about how to value ‘antiques’). Never lost an appeal on the issue! In one case the client had a grand piano. When asked by the Chairman if he could and did play the piano, the client replied “yes” and the Chaiman retorted - “appeal allowed”.
Perhaps IDS will bring back a form of 1920’s means test as part of UC - no entitlement until you’ve sold most of your valuable possessions!
Was it wrong of me to laugh out loud as I watched the yachtsman freezing off the Azores?
On a more serious note, the programme ultimately just added to the drip drip of suspicion of all people who claim benefits. I have noticed lately that if I tell people what I do for a living, I am asked something like “so how many people do you see who are fraudsters?” or words to that effect.
Is it going to become socially unacceptable to help people who claim benefits? as previously mentioned what about all the other fraud??
Yes, when I worked in a DSS office many years ago, I came across records from the days of National Assistance, which contained statements like “Given two weeks money, told to sell table and chairs, should have be able to survive for a month by which time a job can be secured”
I have noticed lately that if I tell people what I do for a living, I am asked something like “so how many people do you see who are fraudsters?” or words to that effect.
Is it going to become socially unacceptable to help people who claim benefits? as previously mentioned what about all the other fraud??
I’ve had that for years. If it wasn’t blah blah benefits etc it was the often hilarious misunderstanding that I was involved in educational welfare
I tend to say council worker now and if pushed say legal stuff.
Perhaps IDS will bring back a form of 1920’s means test as part of UC - no entitlement until you’ve sold most of your valuable possessions!
Ah but these days most stuff is actually pretty worthless once you’ve bought it.
John,
Not a bad idea, certainly saying I work for the Council’s legal dept seems to scare of door to door doubleglazing salespeople and the like.
But the amount of strange ideas people have about the wonderful life to had on benefits is at times staggering and whilst it is good to highlight a problem like fraud for 55mins of a one hour programme, a brief statment at the end saying something to the effect of “of course the vast majority of people claiming benefits really need them” doesn’t counter the general impression of benefits claimants being on the fiddle.
Education Welfare Officer, now there’s a thankless job
Pianos? Luxury. I remember someone being refused a single payment in the 1980s following a DHSS visiting officer’s comment that because they had a half empty bottle of sherry on their sideboard they didn’t need what they had claimed for. What would have been said if the bottle had been full?
Once councils start administering what’s left of the social fund I fear we will see a return to such behaviour as routine.
Once councils start administering what’s left of the social fund I fear we will see a return to such behaviour as routine.
I’m planning a chain of shops to counter that. I’m sure that LAs will issue vouchers for goods that can redeemed in those shops and I intend to make sure that the furniture will only be from the world’s best brands; clearly marked for confidence.
Sony, Toshiba, Bosch, Dyson…. it will all depend on where that week’s cardboard boxes come from.
There’s one positive I can say about that programme. At least it wasn’t Dominic Littlewood again. Blimmin’ saints & scroungers or whatever they called it. (I was on maternity leave when they were showing it in daytime, I thought I was meant to be OFF work)
Pianos? Luxury. I remember someone being refused a single payment in the 1980s following a DHSS visiting officer’s comment that because they had a half empty bottle of sherry on their sideboard they didn’t need what they had claimed for. What would have been said if the bottle had been full?
Once councils start administering what’s left of the social fund I fear we will see a return to such behaviour as routine.
The old means test man may well rear his ugly head again. My late grandmother told me in the 1930s people would pass “spare” matresses or spare home made rugs (known as clippy mats) over the wall to next door neighbours house where they would be hidden and returned after a visit. Ownership of such “luxuries” meant your dole was stopped as you could sell them and live off the money. Not quite victorian values yet but we are heading in the “right” direction.