Private companies checking benefit claimants

[Hammy02]

David Cameron is going to work with Experion to check that benefit claimants are not spending money that they should not have. I think it's a great idea. Why should taxpayers pay for someone who doesn't work to have Sky TV, a car or a huge TV? If they can afford these, either the benefits they are receiving are too high or they have another source of income. Surely benefits are to keep people out of poverty and that is all?

"So BarmyArmy and Chil1234, are you first in the queue to come and do some caring for my profoundly disabled daughter?"

Please don't lump me in with BarmyArmy. If you have a disabled daughter and you're struggling to make ends meet you, of all people, should be furious at the waste and inefficiency within the welfare system and also anyone that takes something to which they are not entitled - meaning you have to go without.

This is a golden opportunity to ask what we actually want a welfare system to do, challenge some erroneous assumptions and generally make it fit for purpose.

They aren't going to have hundreds of people there sitting looking through credit card statements you know

"Look Mrs X has just got an i-phone" "never mind the i-phone, Mr Y has just bought a 42" telly, flat screen too..."

They will be running computer scans against the various data sets & coming out with lists of "Miss A has (benefits) income of £200/week, but is spending approx "£800/week on her credit cards","Mr B gets £1000 in credits into his current account each month, but only get £500 of that from benefits" i.e. the sums just don't add up. Then it will be down to real people to look at these & find out if fraud is involved. All they are trying to do is narrow down the data set for the fraud teams from 100% of claimants to say 2%

It's not a new idea, just a new source of data.

only if they don't eat meat tethersend, they must not be able to afford both.

What if they shop in Waitrose ..maybe waitrose should spy on them too

Right. So Pheasant's out then?

Unless you run over it.

Oh, but that means you've got a car... err...

you could always attemopt to run it over with your bike, but only if it is a second hand apollo

And you're on your way across the country to look for work a la Tebbit

You are correct, you must be a passenger in the car that hit the pheasant...it is confusing!

wubblybubbly - at the time of writing...reliance on benefits obviates one's objectivity.

pheasant is okay so long as someone else's (taxpayer of course) car has run it over

infact why don't we reduce benefits by the cost of one pheasant a week & make claimants go & search for road kill? After all they have nothing else to do, it's not like they are working (Do you think it will catch on?)

We should bring back the workhouse, that'll stop all those scroungers buying big TVs and pre-cut fruit.

Send their children up the tax payers chimneys

Does paying tax mean you are objective?

After all, you are singlehandedly paying for everyone's flat screen TVs. And their pheasants.

I can see them now. In front of their big TV. Pheasant for dinner. Pre-cut fruit for dessert. It's not on!

The present system is anything but compassionate.

Fixing it and focussing better help on those with genuine need is a more compassionate response than wringing one's hands about the Government's "attack on poor people".

Bias works both ways barmy, difficult concept I know

I think it worked- BarmyArmy is ignoring me. Phew.

And all I had to do was run over a pheasant with my flatscreen TV.

Livingbytheriver - yes, of course benefits claimants with SKY are spending every minute of their day applying for jobs online.

Most libraries have free internet access nowadays, without an infinite number of sh*te tv channels to distract one.

tethersend - as a taxpayer, I should have a greater say in where my money is going than on a net recipient.

Kaloki - see above.

Its ok you lazy scroungers Jezzas on itv ..you don't need sky for that

I am getting confused now, are the peasants eating pheasant or are the taxpayers eating peasants?

and in front of whose tv? the paesants flatscreen tv or the taxpayers 1980s wooden effect throwback tv?

That's not what I asked you, BA. I asked whether paying tax makes you objective. After all, if you erroneously believe that it's your money, it's hardly the most dispassionate standpoint is it?

How do you account for the fact that I pay tax and have a different view to you on the issue?

The peasant's pheasant?