20 years ish of benefit fraud... 9 months in prision

#2
Makes a change for anyone who does benefit fraud to get locked up. Lately it's been pay it back at £5 for the next 60 years!
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#3
I thought benefit only stopped if the (ex) wife re-married? If in fact benefit is supposed to stop when co-habiting she is not the only one defrauding AFCS.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
She clearly broke the rules and is paying the price but are the rules fair?

Is an Armed Forces widows payment a social security benefit or is it an earned, albeit by the spouse, payment?

We are told that Armed Forces Pay is abated to take account of pension and therefore its a virtual contributory pension. Wives and husbands have to put up with the peculiarities of service life, a major one being the constraints of earning a decent pay and building up a pension of their own. In that sense you may even consider that they earn their share of the pension. Indeed for those who loose their spouses in a traumatic circumstances they are paying a heavier price for their pension than most.

Most of us would hope the any service widow will be able to form new relationships and get on with life. It would be pretty disturbing if financial considerations where uppermost in their minds when meeting a potential partner.
 
#6
The court heard there will be Proceeds of Crime proceedings against Garside later this year to force her to repay the money.

This means for example that if she owns her own house the court could issue a compensation order and force her to sell it to repay the money.

So the 4 1/2 months in prison (you only serve half) is only part of her punishnent.
 
#7
A neighbour of mine (described in the local rag as a university lecturer, but in truth was an ad-hoc arts teacher) screwed the system for over 8 years and a total amount of over £65,000.

She worked, had a VW camper in fantastic nick, a '76 Mini and a speedboat in the driveway.

Punishment? None as far as we know. It was reported in the local rag as paying it back at a "nominal sum" per week. She was threatened with nick but because she was a single mother with 3 children (2 over 18 and living away from home) and looked after an invalid mother (?) she was let off.

The good thing for us is that she was thrown out of the property - she used to have massive parties which went into the early hours of the morning, music pounding out, etc.....

I love loud music myself and enjoy parties, but when it's happening twice or three times a month and each one goes on until 2 or 3 in the morning it rankles.

Peace has now descended on our neighbourhood and tranquility surrounds us.......magic!!
 
#8
The court heard there will be Proceeds of Crime proceedings against Garside later this year to force her to repay the money.

This means for example that if she owns her own house the court could issue a compensation order and force her to sell it to repay the money.

So the 4 1/2 months in prison (you only serve half) is only part of her punishnent.
POCA Confiscation orders can be extremely draconian, I wouldn't be surprised if she sends up having to hand over a considerable chunk of her assets.

As Martok says the custodial term is only part of the story and, depending on the details of her offending, probably not the worst part.
 
#10
Remind me, how long did David Laws MP get for fiddling 30 grand in housing expenses when he was cohabiting? Ah yes, I remember now.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
Remind me, how long did David Laws MP get for fiddling 30 grand in housing expenses when he was cohabiting? Ah yes, I remember now.
Good point, except that it's balls. Its true what he said in his claim was not true but he could have claimed more if he had been truthful. He was trying to cover up the nature of his homosexual relationship which is sad but understandable. He was not trying to fiddle money.
 
#12
Its true what he said in his claim was not true but he could have claimed more if he had been truthful. . He was not trying to fiddle money.

So stating a falsehood when claiming expenses is acceptable as long as one could have claimed more if one had told the truth. Balls.

He was trying to cover up the nature of his homosexual relationship which is sad but understandable
Why is it understandable? Shows a distinct lack of judgement from somebody aspiring to high office.
 
#13
Good point, except that it's balls. Its true what he said in his claim was not true but he could have claimed more if he had been truthful. He was trying to cover up the nature of his homosexual relationship which is sad but understandable. He was not trying to fiddle money.
Are you trying to say fraud is OK if you're gay? Perhaps the widow should have claimed she was cohabiting with a lesbian trapped in a man's body and she'd have got away with it.

David Laws is a millionaire. As you say, he didn't need the money. He knew he wasn't entitled to it but he helped himself anyway. As was stated at the time, a gay man claiming £30k in housing benefit while cohabiting would almost certainly have gone to prison.

I don't think that it's balls to expect MPs to be subject to the same legislation as the rest of us.
 
#14
I totally agree with the above statement and anyone who disagrees is a throbber! Lincoln Crown court is lovely.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
Laws wasn't claiming money he wasn't entitled to. He could have claimed more had he been honest in his claim.

The reason he did not want to reveal his homosexuality was that elements of his family are deeply religious and he feared they would not approve. I think that it was a mistake and he was wrong on both counts but it was understandable.

I think we should hold politicians to high standards but we should also remember that they are people they make mistakes. Most of them are hard working decent people but there is a tendency to assume that they are all criminals who's are motivated by self interest and what they can screw out of the system. There is a danger of that becoming a self fulfilling prophesy. Normal decent people will say that it isn't worth the crap they have to put up with and we'll only be left with the chancers who think they'll get away with it.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
So stating a falsehood when claiming expenses is acceptable as long as one could have claimed more if one had told the truth. Balls.
I don't think it's acceptable but I don't think it's worthy of faux moral outrage.

Why is it understandable? Shows a distinct lack of judgement from somebody aspiring to high office.
I think you are right that it shows a lack of judgement but I also think its understandable. Life isn't black and white. I don't find it difficult to understand why a homosexual man may wish to keep that a secret. It may come as a surprise to the ARRSE massive but there are a lot of bigots out there who don't approve. At the end of the day somebodies private life should be exactly that - private.
 
#17
I think it's total b###s to pull the gay card because you made a false claim. Claiming his family is religious is a bit of a con, I bet he'll be voting for gay marriage when it gets shoved through. How would he square that with his religious relatives? Incidentally, note today that Clegg says he wants Laws back in his cabinet. So there you go, all criminals together and screw the public every which way you want. One law for one, one for the rest.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#18
I think it's total b###s to pull the gay card because you made a false claim. Claiming his family is religious is a bit of a con, I bet he'll be voting for gay marriage when it gets shoved through. How would he square that with his religious relatives? Incidentally, note today that Clegg says he wants Laws back in his cabinet. So there you go, all criminals together and screw the public every which way you want. One law for one, one for the rest.
Alternatively you could grow up. He wasn't pulling the 'gay card'. The issue had nothing to do with him being gay per se but with him wishing to protect his privacy. I don't know how he would have squared his voting with his relatives but the tone of your question suggests more about your views than about his.

He hardly screwed the public, he actually claimed less than he was entitled to.

By all accounts he was an effective minister, I'd rather have an effective minister with human flaws like the rest of us than a useless tosser who is whiter than white.

Maybe the reason I have some sympathy with him is that I have a number of close relatives who are fairly religious and would be extremely hurt if they knew that I am an atheist with a deep loathing of religion. I don't parade my atheism in front of them.
 
#19
Alternatively you could grow up. He wasn't pulling the 'gay card'. The issue had nothing to do with him being gay per se but with him wishing to protect his privacy. I don't know how he would have squared his voting with his relatives but the tone of your question suggests more about your views than about his.

He hardly screwed the public, he actually claimed less than he was entitled to.

By all accounts he was an effective minister, I'd rather have an effective minister with human flaws like the rest of us than a useless tosser who is whiter than white.

Maybe the reason I have some sympathy with him is that I have a number of close relatives who are fairly religious and would be extremely hurt if they knew that I am an atheist with a deep loathing of religion. I don't parade my atheism in front of them.
Laws.
Let.s understand that MPs are paid a shed load of cash. Their privacy can be intruded upon. Many people have proclaimed they are gay... think Thatchell... spelling... and they were lambasted about it, but they stuck to their guns and tried to move the debate forward. Today, the debate has moved forward, and protecting the fact that you are gay is not a defense in my opinion. In fact, they should be open and honest with the people that elect them.

The original subject of this thread is sent to prison. Anyone else breaking the law should also be sent to prison: especially MPs and their colleagues in the Lords.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
Laws.
Let.s understand that MPs are paid a shed load of cash. Their privacy can be intruded upon. Many people have proclaimed they are gay... think Thatchell... spelling... and they were lambasted about it, but they stuck to their guns and tried to move the debate forward. Today, the debate has moved forward, and protecting the fact that you are gay is not a defense in my opinion. In fact, they should be open and honest with the people that elect them.

The original subject of this thread is sent to prison. Anyone else breaking the law should also be sent to prison: especially MPs and their colleagues in the Lords.
MPs are not really paid very well considering the importance of the job they should be doing and the crap they have to put up with.

I don't think an MPs private life should be a matter of public interest unless they are behaving in a way that is incompatible with their public pronouncements.

I wouldn't want to stop you in the middle of a good rant but who was damaged by Laws dishonesty? Who were the victims?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top