Benefits cheating

[CrazyDave]

26 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

probably accidentally claimed by not updating circumstances”. Well the court will have heard the evidence when coming to their conclusion.

Correct.

That is probably what the sentence that some of the idiots here are criticising is based on.  The fact that the  deputy deemster actually had access to all the details.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Was it NY mayor Ed Koch who tackled crime by starting at the bottom? ASB, shoplifting, street violence, disagreeable public drunkenness, graffiti, benefits crimes may not seem important in The Great Scheme of Things, but they are. Some people think they’re above the law - and need reminding that’s not true. I’m all for harsh sentencing when appropriate and not slaps on the wrist or multiple ‘last chances’ for recidivists. We all make mistakes or have mitigating circumstances, but it should be three strikes and jail.

 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Are you thinking of Rudi Giuliani former mayor of NY and his “broken window” thing of which I mentioned previously in a similar topic?
Ignore small crimes and that will lead to bigger ones etc.

 

56 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Yes, that’s the fella and the theory…thank you.

 

51 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You’re welcome 

It was neither.

Zero Tolerance, or the broken window theory of crime reduction, started two decades before in New Jersey ( Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, which was approved in New Jersey in 1973 ) and was subject of article in a US cultural magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling about the broken windows theory of crime.

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandalsto break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants.”

The main criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security, it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes," those committed by lower social classes and excludes white-collar crimes.

Yes, it’s claimed Giuliani adopted it in 1993 and crime reduced substantially. But like most republican misinformation that’s untrue. In New York City, the decline of the crime rate had started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power in 1993. None of the decrease in crime seems to have anything to do with policies introduced by him.  Indeed the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy.

Let’s face it, IoM has had a zero tolerance broken windows policy on drugs for 50+ years. Has it worked. Have we won the “war on drugs”?

 

[Harry Lamb]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Yes, that’s the fella and the theory…thank you.

What has happened to him, I wonder?

[doc.fixit]

Mixed up in the Trump debacle I believe?

[The Voice of Reason]

27 minutes ago, HeliX said:

It'll be paid off over ~20y. The same cannot be said for the rest of our Government overspend.

I am entirely unconcerned by a not well off person "stealing" a pittance, in a world full of rich people making off with millions in dodged tax and corporate handouts.

Any interest accruing or adjustment for inflation in those 20 years.? At say a lowly 6 % on 30 k   there’s no way those repayments will even begin to recover the amount “ “ lost”
 

The Liverpool landing stage will be paid for. Not quite sure what you’re gettIng at.
 

Would you be “ entirely unconcerned” by a not well off person breaking into house and nicking your valuable possessions 

[The Voice of Reason]

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

 

It was neither.

Zero Tolerance, or the broken window theory of crime reduction, started two decades before in New Jersey ( Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, which was approved in New Jersey in 1973 ) and was subject of article in a US cultural magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling about the broken windows theory of crime.

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandalsto break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants.”

The main criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security, it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes," those committed by lower social classes and excludes white-collar crimes.

Yes, it’s claimed Giuliani adopted it in 1993 and crime reduced substantially. But like most republican misinformation that’s untrue. In New York City, the decline of the crime rate had started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power in 1993. None of the decrease in crime seems to have anything to do with policies introduced by him.  Indeed the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy.

Let’s face it, IoM has had a zero tolerance broken windows policy on drugs for 50+ years. Has it worked. Have we won the “war on drugs”?

 

OK “Mr know it all” 😀let’s not worry about low level crime. 
 

You say the “broken windows” approach “considers the poor as criminals”. Others might say that those committing criminal damage, be they rich or poor should be considered as criminals.
White collar crimes are also crimes and should/ must also be treated as such.

[The Voice of Reason]

7 minutes ago, Billy Bleach said:

Relied on the income of two past partners and did t update her status. One of whom probably shopped her to the DHSC as she moved in with the other one. But let’s all get the pitchforks out and burn the witch when we have about 2,000 public sector grifters at least stealing a living off the taxpayer. 

We are not burning the witch. She has been prosecuted, quite properly, for benefit fraud.

Whatever you think about civil service salaries is irrelevant in this debate.

Your use of the word “ shopped” is interesting about someone informing about benefit fraud whatever their motive.

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Last para

[CrazyDave]

15 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

there’s no way those repayments will even begin to recover the amount “ “ lost”

If she spent it then 20 percent of it probably went to VAT

If she spent it on cigarettes, fuel, or alcohol then it was a lot more.

Its not worth worrying about.

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK “Mr know it all” 😀let’s not worry about low level crime. 
 

You say the “broken windows” approach “considers the poor as criminals”. Others might say that those committing criminal damage, be they rich or poor should be considered as criminals.
White collar crimes are also crimes and should/ must also be treated as such.

You’ve completely missed the point of the critique.

[HeliX]

20 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Would you be “ entirely unconcerned” by a not well off person breaking into house and nicking your valuable possessions 

Stealing from an individual and "stealing" from a Govt or corporation are very different things.

Also depends what was stolen. If someone broke into my house (I'd be annoyed about the damage) and stole a loaf of bread I wouldn't be bothered about the bread. If someone is that desperate to feed themselves I would help if I could.

I'd rather they asked a favour than broke my windows, though.

[Kopek]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

’m all for harsh sentencing when appropriate and not slaps on the wrist

ooooh! Someone has woken the Dragon!!!

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

Stealing from an individual and "stealing" from a Govt or corporation are very different things.

Also depends what was stolen. If someone broke into my house (I'd be annoyed about the damage) and stole a loaf of bread I wouldn't be bothered about the bread. If someone is that desperate to feed themselves I would help if I could.

I'd rather they asked a favour than broke my windows, though.

Going back to my original question would you regard your loaf of bread as one of your valuable possessions? I’d probably let that go as well, whilst acknowledging  that stealing is stealing.

It must be so nice to live in your world.

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Stealing from an individual and "stealing" from a Govt or corporation are very different things.

But stealing from the Govt is stealing from us all. It’s from us they get their money.

[HeliX]

10 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But stealing from the Govt is stealing from us all. It’s from us they get their money.

But it's spread proportionally to tax paid. If someone steals from the Gov to feed themselves or their family then that's fair game frankly.

[HeliX]

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Going back to my original question would you regard your loaf of bread as one of your valuable possessions? I’d probably let that go as well, whilst acknowledging  that stealing is stealing.

It must be so nice to live in your world.

I don't consider the tax that went to benefits "frauds" to be one of my valuable possessions either.

My world is ok. Too many people are mean to the wrong victims though.