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

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Kromeriz, Aug 29, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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!
    • Like Like x 1
  2. 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.
  3. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Lincoln crown court is nice!
  5. 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.
  6. 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!!
  7. 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.
  8. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    Interestingly the NHS pension rules state that a CWP (widows pension) can be restarted if she divorces him and they stop living together. I wonder if its the same with the 75 scheme?
  9. 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.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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.

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

    Why is it understandable? Shows a distinct lack of judgement from somebody aspiring to high office.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. 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.
    • Like Like x 4
  13. I totally agree with the above statement and anyone who disagrees is a throbber! Lincoln Crown court is lovely.
  14. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    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.