Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
yootalkin2me

Fraudulent Claim

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said:
  1. "Mental Asylum" is not a thing anymore.  You're thinking of the 80's.
  2. "I'm mental" is not the carte blanche you think it is.

I'm guessing you're just knee jerking out of habit.

You're not very good at this "guessing game" are you Rich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

You're not very good at this "guessing game" are you Rich?

Well his lack of knowledge of the subject suggests otherwise.

Maybe he can claim "I'm mental" instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said:

Well his lack of knowledge of the subject suggests otherwise.

Maybe he can claim "I'm mental" instead.

I think he's already sussed that you are mental...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neil Down said:

I think he's already sussed that you are mental...

No you are...

(See where this childish thread is going?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

No you are...

(See where this childish thread is going?)

I’d give up.

It was quiet for a week or so and now all the childish sniping has returned. 

Funny that. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, yootalkin2me said:

So, it would appear that although she's paying a paltry £20 per week back, this £20 is more than likely paid from benefits therefore we are effectively paying ourselves back for over £39k that we didn't spend:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=45371&headline=Benefit of £39k falsely claimed over 10 years&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019

I take your point, and agree it must be repaid,  but it's effectively a lifetime burden for her. It may only be £20 per week but it's £20 out of not a lot for the rest of her life. That's probably the difference between going to the pub occasionally or having the odd takeaway meal and not for the rest of her life.

Her lifestyle, due to repaying this money and the loss of amount she's been overclaiming will be fundamentally, and probably permanently, worse going forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Declan said:

I take your point, and agree it must be repaid,  but it's effectively a lifetime burden for her. It may only be £20 per week but it's £20 out of not a lot for the rest of her life. That's probably the difference between going to the pub occasionally or having the odd takeaway meal and not for the rest of her life.

Her lifestyle, due to repaying this money and the loss of amount she's been overclaiming will be fundamentally, and probably permanently, worse going forward.

She had every opportunity to stop in the 10 years but chose not to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I’d give up.

It was quiet for a week or so and now all the childish sniping has returned. 

Funny that. 

some wish you would.

You have this knack of making inflammatory comments without knowing much. Look up the word "sniping" it does not relate to any comments so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neil Down said:

some wish you would.

You have this knack of making inflammatory comments without knowing much. Look up the word "sniping" it does not relate to any comments so far

You are literally doing what he is accusing "you" of.

(slow clap)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said:

You are literally doing what he is accusing "you" of.

(slow clap)

The irony was not lost on me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

She had every opportunity to stop in the 10 years but chose not to.

I think the sentence is fair. Just pointing out that it isn't a light one for the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our society, the tax payer will always have to take financial responsibility for more vulnerable persons who are part of that society and rightly so.

The £ 40,000 headline cost in this case will draw the attention of those who do not think about the above but how much of that amount would ave had to be paid in Social Security payments to give this person the support that they need, maybe under a different payment scheme, to allow them to be able to survive in our society?

The greatest ' crime ' here seems to be the removal of a social house from the pool of houses that could be used by those who need it were it to be have made available.

Douglas Corp will have been paid their rent on this house, were they also guilty of turning a blind eye to the social security fraud?

If we are to abandon our responsibilities to the vulnerable through the social security system, then we would have to accept that, in reciprocity,we may also have to accept thye non payment of, let's say, the unemployed payment to those, who for no fault of their own, find their selves out of work. In this case you could have a family of five without any money coming in to support, feed and clothe the  family.

Is that what we want? Or do we pay out in order to receive when 'WE' want the support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...