The Post General Election Thread

[gordondaviesmoustache]

but I find the suggestion of a figure of 0.5% fraud within the system to be completely and utterly unbelievable.

What possible knowledge could you have on this as believable or unbelievable outside the well trusted sources of "it's common sense!" and "don't look right to me mate"?

Seeing as you asked, the personal knowledge I have on this subject would probably considerably surprise you. It is significant and I'm happy to wager that £1,000 that Fetlocks owes me that I speak with sufficient authority on this topic, discernibly and demonstrably beyond the pejorative quotes you've offered. My knowledge is real, meaningful and worthwhile.

I'll provide the proof, face to face, at the last game of the season, at which I'll expect you'll be present.

Are you up for it?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

but I find the suggestion of a figure of 0.5% fraud within the system to be completely and utterly unbelievable.

What possible knowledge could you have on this as believable or unbelievable outside the well trusted sources of "it's common sense!" and "don't look right to me mate"?

Seeing as you asked, the personal knowledge I have on this subject would probably considerably surprise you. It is significant and I'm happy to wager that £1,000 that Fetlocks owes me that I speak with sufficient authority on this topic, discernibly and demonstrably beyond the pejorative quotes you've offered. My knowledge is real, meaningful and worthwhile.

I'll provide the proof, face to face, at the last game of the season, at which I'll expect you'll be present.

Are you up for it?

[bigimg]http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s252/unrulysunne/Animated%20GIFs/oooh.gif[/bigimg]

 

[Damocles]

Okay I will have to explain then, the government in its wisdom decided that they would change the system for those receiving disability allowance, they are under the impression that some who receive the benefit are capable of work, rascal quoted 20 percent, let's say this is true, he then claims that as only 0.5 percent are fraudulent claimants it doesn't add up

It adds up pretty well?

Let's say that the Government say that anybody who earns under £12,000 a year is unable to live by their own means in society.

Then let's say that a later Government change that figure to £10,000.

This doesn't mean that everybody between £10,000 and £12,000 was fraudulently claiming benefits, it means that the Government redefined what "unable to live" means.

What he and you are missing and I find baffling is that the vast majority of those who they now deem fit to do some kind of work were perfectly entitled to claim disability previously, the weren't defrauding anyone

This is a self defeating argument. There's a massive difference between "able to work physically" and "able to work". My Mum lives in a wheelchair, is blind, cannot walk 5 paces, has diabetes, had a mastectomy and bone cancer, 2 strokes, decreased brain function, cannot lift her left arm above her chest, no nerve endings in her extremities meaning any form of tactile interface such as Braille is impossible and uncontrollable bladder and bowels. In addition she has extremely high blood pressure, uncontrollable spikes in blood sugar, issues with sleep to the point of having to have ~16 hours a day rest and a knackered heart, lungs and kidneys.

By almost every measure that me or you can come up with, she is absolutely disabled. Could she however get on the phone and do a telesales job for 16+ hours a week? Yeah she probably could if the choice was starving to death. She wouldn't exactly do it very well but she has the ability to talk to people ever now and again with some bit of lucidity. So surely she can work right?

This is the fallacy that you've committed - ability to work in extreme circumstances and disabled are totally different things and creating a binary choice of work/not work in determining disabled/not disabled doesn't understand the reality of what disabled people live like.

 

[hilts]

but I find the suggestion of a figure of 0.5% fraud within the system to be completely and utterly unbelievable.

What possible knowledge could you have on this as believable or unbelievable outside the well trusted sources of "it's common sense!" and "don't look right to me mate"?

Only on bluemoon could people argue about a stat that is unprovable and not relevant anyhow

 

[The perfect fumble]

gordondaviesmoustache wrote:


What percentage of middle mangers fiddle their expenses from time to time ? I don't know the answer, but I bet it's significantly more than 0.5%.?

I don't know how authoritative this is....

It’s Not Just MPs! Dealing With Fraudulent Expenses Claims!....

http://www.freshbusinessthinking.co...th+Fraudulent+Expenses+Claims%21#.VVPN02d0xaQ

....."In fact, recent surveys suggest that 5% to 20% of all expenses claims are either inflated or simply fictitious"

 

[Damocles]

but I find the suggestion of a figure of 0.5% fraud within the system to be completely and utterly unbelievable.

What possible knowledge could you have on this as believable or unbelievable outside the well trusted sources of "it's common sense!" and "don't look right to me mate"?

Seeing as you asked, the personal knowledge I have on this subject would probably considerably surprise you. It is significant and I'm happy to wager that £1,000 that Fetlocks owes me that I speak with sufficient authority on this topic, discernibly and demonstrably beyond the pejorative quotes you've offered. My knowledge is real, meaningful and worthwhile.

I'll provide the proof, face to face, at the last game of the season, at which I'll expect you'll be present.

Are you up for it?

Hahahahaha, no I'm absolutely not.

I prefer that sort of thing like explaining your point and citing your sources than I'll meet you round the back of the bike sheds when it comes to these type of debates.

What are you even thinking here? Extremely beneath you that GDM.

 

[The perfect fumble]

gordondaviesmoustache wrote:


What percentage of middle mangers fiddle their expenses from time to time ? I don't know the answer, but I bet it's significantly more than 0.5%.?

http://www.stonebridgebp.com/librar...t-fraud-ten-ways-to-protect-your-organization

"The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reported in its 2012 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abusethat approximately 14.5% of all asset misappropriations investigated involved expense reimbursement fraud."

 

[Rascal]

Okay I will have to explain then, the government in its wisdom decided that they would change the system for those receiving disability allowance, they are under the impression that some who receive the benefit are capable of work, rascal quoted 20 percent, let's say this is true, he then claims that as only 0.5 percent are fraudulent claimants it doesn't add up

IDS wants to cut disability benefits by 20% to save money. that only 0.5% of claims according to his own facts and figures supplied by his Dept the DWP just show what an idiotic **** the man is. He knows that 20% are not fraudulent but he wants to save 20% nonetheless.

Over the last 8 years or so since the ATOS tests started i must have made a 1000 posts on this subject. Its a subject that affects me and many people i know and its a subject i have researched. I know campaigners who have produced reports, lobbied parliament and demonstrated against these cuts. Because that is what they are. They are cuts in the availability of welfare to 1 in 5 disabled people based on a scurrilous and discredited test that is undertaken by unqualified personal aiming to meet targets set underhandly by IDS and his right hand woman Mcvey and before her Millar and Grayling.

I repeatedly warned where these tests would lead and i have been proved right at every turn. People here may laugh at some of my politics and i laugh at myself at some of the nonsense im capable of producing but on this issue and on this issue alone i am always deadly serious as i have seen at first hand what damage these cuts are doing to people and what hharm they are inflicting on some of the most vulnerable in society.

 

[hilts]

Okay I will have to explain then, the government in its wisdom decided that they would change the system for those receiving disability allowance, they are under the impression that some who receive the benefit are capable of work, rascal quoted 20 percent, let's say this is true, he then claims that as only 0.5 percent are fraudulent claimants it doesn't add up

It adds up pretty well?

Let's say that the Government say that anybody who earns under £12,000 a year is unable to live by their own means in society.

Then let's say that a later Government change that figure to £10,000.

This doesn't mean that everybody between £10,000 and £12,000 was fraudulently claiming benefits, it means that the Government redefined what "unable to live" means.

What he and you are missing and I find baffling is that the vast majority of those who they now deem fit to do some kind of work were perfectly entitled to claim disability previously, the weren't defrauding anyone

This is a self defeating argument. There's a massive difference between "able to work physically" and "able to work". My Mum lives in a wheelchair, is blind, cannot walk 5 paces, has diabetes, had a mastectomy and bone cancer, 2 strokes, decreased brain function, cannot lift her left arm above her chest, no nerve endings in her extremities meaning any form of tactile interface such as Braille is impossible and uncontrollable bladder and bowels. In addition she has extremely high blood pressure, uncontrollable spikes in blood sugar, issues with sleep to the point of having to have ~16 hours a day rest and a knackered heart, lungs and kidneys.

By almost every measure that me or you can come up with, she is absolutely disabled. Could she however get on the phone and do a telesales job for 16+ hours a week? Yeah she probably could if the choice was starving to death. She wouldn't exactly do it very well but she has the ability to talk to people ever now and again with some bit of lucidity. So surely she can work right?

This is the fallacy that you've committed - ability to work in extreme circumstances and disabled are totally different things and creating a binary choice of work/not work in determining disabled/not disabled doesn't understand the reality of what disabled people live like.

What the hell are you going on about what as this got to do with the fraud figure, let's say some idiot decided that your mum was capable of working and took away her benefits, this wouldn't mean she has defrauded the government over the years, she was entitled to it under the previous system

That is why the fraud figure is irrelevant, just bloody admit the new system is about trying get more people off the benefit and is not saying they have been all frauds

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What possible knowledge could you have on this as believable or unbelievable outside the well trusted sources of "it's common sense!" and "don't look right to me mate"?

Seeing as you asked, the personal knowledge I have on this subject would probably considerably surprise you. It is significant and I'm happy to wager that £1,000 that Fetlocks owes me that I speak with sufficient authority on this topic, discernibly and demonstrably beyond the pejorative quotes you've offered. My knowledge is real, meaningful and worthwhile.

I'll provide the proof, face to face, at the last game of the season, at which I'll expect you'll be present.

Are you up for it?

Hahahahaha, no I'm absolutely not.

I prefer that sort of thing like explaining your point and citing your sources than I'll meet you round the back of the bike sheds when it comes to these type of debates.

What are you even thinking here? Extremely beneath you that GDM.

You decided to escalate this debate by questioning the basis for me forming my views. Anyone who has properly arrived at a conclusion (as I have) which is then subject to any such challenge would respond in the way I have.

You asked a question; I responded to it robustly. Rather than being beneath me, it is very typical of me. I never pick a fight unless I'm sure I can win. Choose your battles.

I respect you declining my offer of a bet and I'll leave it there. Whenever we meet up I'll buy you a beer and explain why what you asked was so open to ridicule :-)