BBC Television programmes  permalink

Saints and Scroungers

Messages: 1 - 36 of 36
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Phantom Raspberry (U14820552) on Wednesday, 30th October 2013

    Well done, Auntie Beeb, for today's main subject of the hated bedroom tax. A slap in the mouth for Iain Duncan Schmitt!!

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 30th October 2013

    Is it hated? I think its hated by the tiny number of people affected and by quite a few well-meaning supporters, but not by the majority of people:

    order-order.com/2013...

    The thousands of families waiting for social housing that can accommodate their families probably don't hate it. Nor do the private sector renters and buyer who could never hope to afford to have a spare room.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Fiddling the taxpayer is a low-risk past-time, from those at the top to those at the bottom.

    On yesterday's show two dentists defrauded the NHS over many years, their punishment? Suspended sentences and a confiscation order. They got £1 back from one dentist who declared himself bankrupt, and the other fled the country taking all of his assets with him!

    Another bouncer/boxing instructor had claimed benefits for arthritis for over 20 years - but said his miraculous recovery only occurred 3 years ago, thus lessening the offence and his liabilities considerably.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    The lack of any kind of checking what people write on application for benefit forms is absolutely stunning. Having watched quite a few of this type of programme, I feel that I could write my name as Elizabeth I. Regina, claiming benefit on a house in Hampton Court, with 6 children, a bad back and depression, and payments would commence without delay. It's incredible that money seems to be handed out on a pretty much ad hoc basis, and that frauds can go on for decades without any regular checks having been made which would reveal that claims are either fraudulent or not. No communication between various authorities - so claimants can make multiple claims on various councils without getting caught. Income support for people who are working - does no-one check to see if they are on PAYE, or see if they have multiple bank accounts via a credit check?

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Pumpkin_Patch_Paul (U14565900) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Missed the show but saw something like it on channel 4, a reporter in America following and chasing a ex BBC employee about massive pay outs.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Pumpkin_Patch_Paul (U14565900) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Is it hated? I think its hated by the tiny number of people affected and by quite a few well-meaning supporters, but not by the majority of people:

    order-order.com/2013...

    The thousands of families waiting for social housing that can accommodate their families probably don't hate it. Nor do the private sector renters and buyer who could never hope to afford to have a spare room. 
    Divide and rule, nothing to do with families waiting for housing just hurting and kicking the most vulnerable in society and that includes the working poor.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Presumably you don't deny that there is a shortage of social housing and that:
    1) There are many young families waiting (some even living in B&Bs)
    2) Many older people whose kids have left but who refuse to leave what they think of as "their" house.

    I personally think the the so-called "bedroom tax" is a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with this problem but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
    Why is it "hurting and kicking" people just to say "sorry we can't afford for you to have a spare room"? (I haven't got one, and I'm not bothered!)

    I think it is rather selfish of people not to want to pass on to the next generation the same help they had when they needed it.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    The lack of any kind of checking what people write on application for benefit forms is absolutely stunning. Having watched quite a few of this type of programme, I feel that I could write my name as Elizabeth I. Regina, claiming benefit on a house in Hampton Court, with 6 children, a bad back and depression, and payments would commence without delay. It's incredible that money seems to be handed out on a pretty much ad hoc basis, and that frauds can go on for decades without any regular checks having been made which would reveal that claims are either fraudulent or not. No communication between various authorities - so claimants can make multiple claims on various councils without getting caught. Income support for people who are working - does no-one check to see if they are on PAYE, or see if they have multiple bank accounts via a credit check?  Give it a go then, if you think it's so easy....

    Maybe expand your knowledge beyond just "watching this type of programme"?

    "This type of programme" is designed as entertainment therefore and picks out the rarest and most egregious examples. The reality for almost every other kind of case is far too mundane to make "good telly".

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Presumably you don't deny that there is a shortage of social housing and that:
    1) There are many young families waiting (some even living in B&Bs)
    2) Many older people whose kids have left but who refuse to leave what they think of as "their" house.

    I personally think the the so-called "bedroom tax" is a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with this problem but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
    Why is it "hurting and kicking" people just to say "sorry we can't afford for you to have a spare room"? (I haven't got one, and I'm not bothered!)

    I think it is rather selfish of people not to want to pass on to the next generation the same help they had when they needed it. 
    The rooms aren't "spare" in any meaningful sense. They are only "spare" according to an arbitrary set of criteria - a couple with two teenage boys who are occupying a box room each have a "spare" room according to these criteria.

    In some parts of the country social housing is lying empty because no households fit these criteria and would be subject to the bedroom tax if they moved in. It takes a special kind of genius to make the cheapest housing unaffordable to the poorest people......

    And how "selfish" of people not to move out of a home when there are no smaller alternatives available.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    As I said, I think it is clumsy and ineffective. It would have been better (though more of a challenge) to work with councils to ensure that everyone had the most suitable accommodation.
    However, it is true that once people come to think of a house as "theirs" (though of course it isn't) they can be very stubborn about giving it up.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by briggsy2 (U1288489) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Saints and Scroungers. A programme title invented by someone who cant understand the term "shades of grey".

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    The lack of any kind of checking what people write on application for benefit forms is absolutely stunning. Having watched quite a few of this type of programme, I feel that I could write my name as Elizabeth I. Regina, claiming benefit on a house in Hampton Court, with 6 children, a bad back and depression, and payments would commence without delay. It's incredible that money seems to be handed out on a pretty much ad hoc basis, and that frauds can go on for decades without any regular checks having been made which would reveal that claims are either fraudulent or not. No communication between various authorities - so claimants can make multiple claims on various councils without getting caught. Income support for people who are working - does no-one check to see if they are on PAYE, or see if they have multiple bank accounts via a credit check?  Give it a go then, if you think it's so easy....

    Maybe expand your knowledge beyond just "watching this type of programme"?

    "This type of programme" is designed as entertainment therefore and picks out the rarest and most egregious examples. The reality for almost every other kind of case is far too mundane to make "good telly". 
    OK Andy - if things are so rigorously checked, how come people can run frauds for years on end? How is it that people working as bouncers get away with claiming to be unable to move or walk? How is it that people in full-time work can get paid benefits? All highlighted recently on this programme. You seem to know what you are talking about - is information entered on claim forms checked before benefits are paid - and if so, to what depth? And are frequent checks made to ensure money is not being paid to fraudulent claims? If so, how frequently? Or once in the system, are you there, as in many examples highlighted on Saints and Scroungers, for decades, and possibly life? That is unless you are unfortunate enough to be 'shopped'.

    There seem to be a considerable number of rare and egregious examples of fraud - enough to fill a lot of "this type of programme" TV series on the subject, and quite a lot of investigators, who presumably uncover quite a lot of fraud. The question should surely be why are benefits to the tune of thousands being paid out to fraudulent claimants? If they were properly checked in the first place, surely they wouldn't be paid?

    I'm not sure that "this type of programme" could be considered entertaining. Do people find it entertaining to be informed that the system is being cheated of hundreds of thousands of pounds by fraudulent claimants? I think it might be considered informative, and possibly even a bit of a deterrent when it is shown that money is recouped and jail time is a possibility.

    On your "give it a go" comment, apparently a considerable number of people have successfully done just that.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    The lack of any kind of checking what people write on application for benefit forms is absolutely stunning. Having watched quite a few of this type of programme, I feel that I could write my name as Elizabeth I. Regina, claiming benefit on a house in Hampton Court, with 6 children, a bad back and depression, and payments would commence without delay. It's incredible that money seems to be handed out on a pretty much ad hoc basis, and that frauds can go on for decades without any regular checks having been made which would reveal that claims are either fraudulent or not. No communication between various authorities - so claimants can make multiple claims on various councils without getting caught. Income support for people who are working - does no-one check to see if they are on PAYE, or see if they have multiple bank accounts via a credit check?  Give it a go then, if you think it's so easy....

    Maybe expand your knowledge beyond just "watching this type of programme"?

    "This type of programme" is designed as entertainment therefore and picks out the rarest and most egregious examples. The reality for almost every other kind of case is far too mundane to make "good telly". 
    OK Andy - if things are so rigorously checked, how come people can run frauds for years on end? How is it that people working as bouncers get away with claiming to be unable to move or walk? How is it that people in full-time work can get paid benefits? All highlighted recently on this programme. You seem to know what you are talking about - is information entered on claim forms checked before benefits are paid - and if so, to what depth? And are frequent checks made to ensure money is not being paid to fraudulent claims? If so, how frequently? Or once in the system, are you there, as in many examples highlighted on Saints and Scroungers, for decades, and possibly life? That is unless you are unfortunate enough to be 'shopped'.

    There seem to be a considerable number of rare and egregious examples of fraud - enough to fill a lot of "this type of programme" TV series on the subject, and quite a lot of investigators, who presumably uncover quite a lot of fraud. The question should surely be why are benefits to the tune of thousands being paid out to fraudulent claimants? If they were properly checked in the first place, surely they wouldn't be paid?

    I'm not sure that "this type of programme" could be considered entertaining. Do people find it entertaining to be informed that the system is being cheated of hundreds of thousands of pounds by fraudulent claimants? I think it might be considered informative, and possibly even a bit of a deterrent when it is shown that money is recouped and jail time is a possibility.

    On your "give it a go" comment, apparently a considerable number of people have successfully done just that. 
    So there are enough examples to fill some programmes. Still makes it rare. People are conned into thinking that rare is commonplace. Yes there are extensive checks - to the extent that, in social security, fraud is down to to 0.7% (YES. 0.7%) of the total spend, and still falling. It's an achievement that you'd think the DWP and the Government would want to be trumpeting, but you almost never hear it. It's almost as if the Government wants everyone think that "everyone's on the fiddle" - what better way to soften up public opinion for yet more cuts.

    Oh and one more thing - if everyone received what they were entitled to - no more no less - we'd be spending around £12 billion a year MORE than we currently do.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    So there are enough examples to fill some programmes. Still makes it rare.. 

    Your logic is baffling. I suggest you watch Panorama's Britain on the Fiddle tonight, it might surprise you.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by briggsy2 (U1288489) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Instead of another programme about benefit "scroungers" i'd rather hear about the effects of Govt. austerity cutbacks, or MPs expenses, or how so many multinational companies get away with paying so little tax, or the bloated pay & bonus culture in this country or how politicians get away with doing nothing about soaring fuel bills from privatised energy companies etc.
    It seems Panorama these days only wants to go for the soft,easy options and doesn't want to tackle the rich and powerful. Hence we get endless programmes about scroungers & litter problem! Pathetic - time it got the axe - or someone new running the ship!

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by The Man Who Watched Telly (U15436784) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Who pays for these programmes? I believe some of the Police ones are funded by the government, sort of propaganda to make us think they are on top of crime.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Wednesday, 6th November 2013

    Instead of another programme about benefit "scroungers" i'd rather hear about the effects of Govt. austerity cutbacks, or MPs expenses, or how so many multinational companies get away with paying so little tax, or the bloated pay & bonus culture in this country or how politicians get away with doing nothing about soaring fuel bills from privatised energy companies etc.
    It seems Panorama these days only wants to go for the soft,easy options and doesn't want to tackle the rich and powerful. Hence we get endless programmes about scroungers & litter problem! Pathetic - time it got the axe - or someone new running the ship! 
    This isn't actually Panorama - it's a 3 part documentary series about people defrauding the benefits system.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 2.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Thursday, 7th November 2013

    So there are enough examples to fill some programmes. Still makes it rare.. 

    Your logic is baffling. I suggest you watch Panorama's Britain on the Fiddle tonight, it might surprise you. 
    Um...no....one thing I can guarantee it won't be is surprising.....

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by antigone (U15918488) on Thursday, 7th November 2013

    The point is - these cases are rare. Only 0.7% of the whole welfare budget is lost to fraud. However, programmes like these , plus the same old same old tabloid stories , Government propaganda as emanated by the DWP - all conspire to give the impression that everyone on benefit is a 'scrounger'. ( Which in itself is a blanket term of abuse that does NOT apply to 99% of people who are receiving benefits)

    I am very surprised that the BBC has stooped so low to commission this sort of so called 'entertainment'. It only serves to perpetuate myths about people who are sick, disabled, unemployed or poor.

    Regarding the bedroom tax, people were allocated the housing they live in well before this invidious tax came in. This government has changed the rules - revoked their tenancy terms and conditions that these tenants signed and agreed to, created new rules - much harsher and more draconian and suddenly expect thousands of families to uproot and move to smaller accommodation - that according to most local authorities just DO NOT EXIST. There is nowhere for the vast majority of these families to move to. The intention has never been to save money ( as it will in fact be more costly to deal with all these homeless families , than if they remained where they were.)

    It is all knee jerk populism based on misinformation and prejudice.
    It is very easy to stereotype everyone on benefits as scroungers - yes of course a tiny minority are - but they are the ones who end up labelling the perfectly innocent 99%!

    Where is the BBC's so called impartiality?

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Thursday, 7th November 2013

    I often wonder if the viewers who don't like these type of programmes are the same ones who are against electronic surveillance in city centres. I reckon well over 99% of people being observed by CCTV there are honest, too.

    Maybe they believe that citizens should be able do what they want without being snooped on by the state.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Michele (U14807568) on Friday, 8th November 2013

    The point is - these cases are rare. Only 0.7% of the whole welfare budget is lost to fraud. However, programmes like these , plus the same old same old tabloid stories , Government propaganda as emanated by the DWP - all conspire to give the impression that everyone on benefit is a 'scrounger'. ( Which in itself is a blanket term of abuse that does NOT apply to 99% of people who are receiving benefits)

    I am very surprised that the BBC has stooped so low to commission this sort of so called 'entertainment'. It only serves to perpetuate myths about people who are sick, disabled, unemployed or poor.

    Regarding the bedroom tax, people were allocated the housing they live in well before this invidious tax came in. This government has changed the rules - revoked their tenancy terms and conditions that these tenants signed and agreed to, created new rules - much harsher and more draconian and suddenly expect thousands of families to uproot and move to smaller accommodation - that according to most local authorities just DO NOT EXIST. There is nowhere for the vast majority of these families to move to. The intention has never been to save money ( as it will in fact be more costly to deal with all these homeless families , than if they remained where they were.)

    It is all knee jerk populism based on misinformation and prejudice.
    It is very easy to stereotype everyone on benefits as scroungers - yes of course a tiny minority are - but they are the ones who end up labelling the perfectly innocent 99%!

    Where is the BBC's so called impartiality? 
    Could not agree with you more, Antigone. I do wonder if the BBC has lost its impartiality. I does seem to be following the Government's policies with gusto. The BBC should be representing the people, after all it is us who pay them... There are benefit scroungers but they are a tiny majority of the people claiming benefits, and the effect of portraying such a blatant abuse of the system is to imply that this is a common problem. It simply is not, but the result is that the public is under the impression that it is and discrimination against disabled people is on the rise again, mainly due to the manipulative propaganda broadcast by the media.
    The other part of the programme, showing the experience of a person who has 'done well', by giving up his large flat and through his own willingness, rejoined 'society', is somewhat misleading and atypical: what is this man going to do when his child is born? Are his wife and himself going to continue living in his one bedroom flat? He was very lucky to find such a flat, there are not many around, as most people with a 'spare' room will know. Also this man has lost his sight, not his ability to walk, think, look after himself, admitted he has a serious disability which most of us would be very frightened of, but it won't get worse, and does not affect his strength and with reasonable adaptations he can look after himself, interact socially and maybe even hold down a job.
    The programme the BBC ought to be doing is about the people who have a chronic condition which is probably going to get worse and who will loose their ability to work and interact socially. What is going to happen to them, what is happening to people who cannot work - in view of the Governments changes to benefits. What happens when the higher rate of DLA/PIP is more difficult to receive and those people who need help getting to work loose the ability to pay for it? What happens to people who cannot comply with the rules of ESA?

    Come on BBC STOP supporting Government propaganda and look at the situation as it is really is... You would do well to read Dr Simon Duffy's paper on How Cuts Are Targeted: http://bit.ly/1d2FEeH
    "The unfairness of this policy is seen even more clearly when we look at the difference between the burden of cuts that falls on most citizens and the burdens that fall on minority groups. By 2015 the annual average loss in income or services will be:
    • People who are not in poverty or have no disability will lose £467 per year
    • People who are in poverty will lose £2,195 per year
    • Disabled people will lose £4,410 per year
    • Disabled people needing social care will lose £8,832 per year"

    "Many people do not know the real facts about the current welfare system:
    1. Benefit fraud is very low – it is only 6% the level of tax fraud and about 1% the level of tax evasion.
    2. Planned benefit cuts are 22 times the size of benefit fraud
    3. £17 billion benefits go unclaimed each year because the system is unfair, stigmatising and too difficult to understand, this is 17 times more than the level of benefit fraud.
    4. It is the poorest 10% of families who pay the highest percentage of their overall income in taxes - 45%
    5. The real cost of benefits and pensions is very low, 86% is paid straight back to the government in taxes. The net cost of benefits after taxes is really only £25 billion.
    6. Most local government spending is ring-fenced by Whitehall (e.g. education) the 41% cut to local government must fall largely on social care, for social care is 60% of the funding that local government actually controls.
    7. The claim that there is extra social care funding is false and relies upon misleading information and statistical distortions."

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Michele (U14807568) on Friday, 8th November 2013

    Lack of editing facility means this is the only way I can correct a mistake I made in the first paragraph of my reply to Antigone: but they are a tiny minority (not majority) of the people claiming benefits,

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Inane Plastic Nobody (U14928527) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    Well said. This, and similar programmes are just a vehicle for government propaganda aimed at further humiliating the poor and the disabled. And stereotypical statements regarding those in receipt of benefit payments show just how successful this propaganda has been. People seem to forget that the majority of the social security budget pays for retirement pensions, and that most of the other payments go towards assisting the underpaid working poor - not the unemployed. Cases of benefit fraud are miniscule in comparison to the amount of revenue lost by tax avoidance. Where is the series investigating this? Where are the programmes looking onto government ministers financial connections to companies given NHS contracts? Or the amount we pay to provide their luxurious second homes, jobs, transport and food for their families? Where is the series looking into the actvities of the royals - including the spending of £1 million of tax payers money on refurbishing the home of two exceedingly rich people? Or an investigation into Prince Charles veto over any laws that affect his private interests and the fact that we - in an apparent democracy - have absolutely no right to know exactly which laws he has changed or stopped from being passed? How anyone can call the BBC a leftist organisation beats me. Their sycophantic fawning over royalty and the rich while further demonising the poor is disgusting.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    The problem with reporting on tax-avoidance is that it is so wide-spread that MPs and programme makers also use loop-holes in the law, so don't expect anything to change very soon. If you've got a good accountant you can quite legally call your self a private company and have your house owned by a trust in a tax haven.

    BUT the people shown on this programme aren't just the feckless who are working the system, these are people who are defrauding the councils and government of millions of pounds. Some have multiple properties, some are wealthy professionals cheating the NHS, some illegally import 1000s of fakes from China, they are not the weak and needy to whom some on here appear to be alluding.

    I enjoy watching these cheats get caught - even if they only get a soft suspended sentence.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    I also like to see cheats get their comeuppance. I don't understand how a programme which shows cheats who subsequently wind up in court for fraud can be described as further belittling the poor and needy. Everyone understands there are sections of the population who need help, and I would suggest that very few begrudge everything they are given. This is about cheats, and showing how these cheats navigate the system to accrue in some cases many thousands of pounds to which they are not entitled. What is it about that which belittles the poor and needy? It's a bit daft to suggest that because some claimants cheat, by association all are cheats. It's a bit like saying there are quite a few burglars in London, therefore everyone from London is a burglar!

    The best deterrent is reclaiming the fraudulent claims, and going after proceeds of crime. If it's seen that eventually you will wind up losing your fraudulent gains, it might become less attractive.

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    In today's edition - a man who owned houses, 2 shops and had 800,000 in the bank was claiming housing benefit and other benefits under 2 different names. When asked why he did it -he replied - because I can.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Wednesday, 13th November 2013

    In today's edition - a man who owned houses, 2 shops and had 800,000 in the bank was claiming housing benefit and other benefits under 2 different names. When asked why he did it -he replied - because I can.

    It may not be to everyone's political taste but this goes on up and down the land and we need to know about it.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by aviddiva (U13145965) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Well done, Auntie Beeb, for today's main subject of the hated bedroom tax. A slap in the mouth for Iain Duncan Schmitt!!  Is his on hold music Joni Mitchell's 'A Free Man In Paris' at all?

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by aviddiva (U13145965) on Friday, 15th November 2013

    Well said. This, and similar programmes are just a vehicle for government propaganda aimed at further humiliating the poor and the disabled. And stereotypical statements regarding those in receipt of benefit payments show just how successful this propaganda has been. People seem to forget that the majority of the social security budget pays for retirement pensions, and that most of the other payments go towards assisting the underpaid working poor - not the unemployed. Cases of benefit fraud are miniscule in comparison to the amount of revenue lost by tax avoidance. Where is the series investigating this? Where are the programmes looking onto government ministers financial connections to companies given NHS contracts? Or the amount we pay to provide their luxurious second homes, jobs, transport and food for their families? Where is the series looking into the actvities of the royals - including the spending of £1 million of tax payers money on refurbishing the home of two exceedingly rich people? Or an investigation into Prince Charles veto over any laws that affect his private interests and the fact that we - in an apparent democracy - have absolutely no right to know exactly which laws he has changed or stopped from being passed? How anyone can call the BBC a leftist organisation beats me. Their sycophantic fawning over royalty and the rich while further demonising the poor is disgusting.  Can't wait for Musical Youth's 'Pass The Duchy' on the Prince Charles bit - I loved the reference to Duchy biscuits on Mock The Week!

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Phantom Raspberry (U14820552) on Friday, 5th September 2014

    You were saying.......?

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by joejob (U14176482) on Saturday, 6th September 2014

    The reason fraud is not investigated properly is because there aren't sufficient resources within the DWP dedicated to doing so -- and I doubt the majority of the public would praise the DWP hierarchy for "wasting" public money in funding a properly staffed, equipped and dedicated fraud department.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Saturday, 6th September 2014

    This show is a real eye-opener. I didn't realise how easy it is to commit fraud and get away with it. They have shown women who claimed benefit for an ever growing number of non-existent disabled children simply by making a telephone call, and others with extensive property portfolios claiming for housing and council tax benefit. The appear to get away with it for a number of years and only get caught by sheer fluke, or because they get too greedy and become careless.

    You would think simple checks would be made for each application, but no, as a spokesman said on the show, 'the system works on trust'. Unbelievable.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by SeptimusPlantpot (U16022797) on Saturday, 6th September 2014

    Is it hated? I think its hated by the tiny number of people affected and by quite a few well-meaning supporters, but not by the majority of people:

    order-order.com/2013...

    The thousands of families waiting for social housing that can accommodate their families probably don't hate it. Nor do the private sector renters and buyer who could never hope to afford to have a spare room. 
    That's a bit naughty Annie Lou.

    Guido Fawkes' blog is hardly vox populi. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by monic1511 (U1768751) on Saturday, 6th September 2014

    This show also highlights the number of people who are not receiving their full entitlement of benefits.
    Last year the government reported that there was unclaimed benefit

    1.1%, or £60m, of Income Support expenditure (£5.5bn) was underpaid;
    0.3%, or £10m, of Jobseeker’s Allowance expenditure (£5.3bn) was underpaid;
    2.1%, or £160m, of Pension Credit expenditure (£7.6bn) was underpaid;
    1.3%, or £300m, of Housing Benefit expenditure (£23.8bn) was underpaid.
    Lifted from statistics.dwp.gov.u...

    Income support, Jobseekers allowance and housing benefit are all claimed by people of working age.
    Pensioners can claim both Pension credit and housing benefit.

    Catching the fraudsters is a priority but there are many people scared to claim their entitlement and they are the one protrayed as saints - a bit patronising at times imo.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.