Grass, or Public Legal Duty?

[Mick H.]

knight of the road - 2008-11-26 9:52 AM

 

BGD - 2008-11-25 10:53 PM

 

knight of the road - 2008-11-25 5:26 PM

 

Mike Parke - 2008-11-25 3:33 PM

 

Drop him in it without a qualm!!. I have always said that whilst we, the taxpayer, have to 'assist' those worse of than ourselves through taxation I do not like anyone kicking a taxpayer whilst he is down. There are jobs about, even now, if one tries hard enough to get one!

 

Mike,

You are tax payer now, but what if in the near or distant future you lost your job and had to sign on, what then? would you still have the same attitude when your income has dropped through the floor?

I personally could not drop someone in it and and if I found out one of my friends had dropped someone in it, they would no longer be a friend of mine. Its ok having lofty ideals but when push comes to shove what do you do? If you were on £60 per week dole money and bills were cascading through your letterbox and someone offered you a couple of days cash in the hand money I would say lofty ideals would go out of the window.

 

Interesting.

 

So for you, committing some types of criminal activities are OK if you are receiving Social Security benefits.

 

So, in addition to criminal fraud, which other criminal activities do you feel to be OK for a person on the Dole to engage in?

 

And which other crimes would be included in your list of those where, if any friend of yours reported that crime to the Police (as they have a legal duty so to do), you would take such offence that you'd reject their company forthwith?

Stealing? From whom exactly would it be OK for them to report the theft, and from whom would their reporting of the theft earn them your cold-shoulder?

Burglary?

Rape?

Murder?

 

Where do you draw your individual moral compass line between the crimes you feel that a person receiving Social Security benefits has some sort of moral right in your opinion to commit on others, and when not?

 

 

 

I have read the replies to this thread with interest and not one has replied saying what they would do if thrown on the dole, dont say you would seek out another job, you may try, but there is a distinct possiblity that you wont get one, what would you do then?

 

 

 

 

Try creating something of your own. Like we have. We weren't thrown on the dole but chose to retire from a job with house and permanent future, through ill health, at 63 somewhat daunting, but it is successful and we are enjoying the freedom that comes with the way we live.

 

Mick H.

 

Mick H.

 

 

 

[nightrider]

Mick H,

Congratulations on what you have done, but you have missed the point, you had the choice to do what you did and did it after a great deal of thought weighing up all the pro's and cons.

Those thrown on the dole dont usually have that benefit, it seems to me that there are quite a few members on this group that would not be averse to kicking someone in the teeth while they are down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BGD]

Hi Malcolm -

 

Keep your hair on mate - I think you missed my point. I only requested your views!

 

I asked you some questions, to explore your reasoning for you saying you think it's wrong to report one particular type of crime......I did not accuse you of anything.

Re-read my previous post.

 

 

What I was seeking to, and would still like to, understand is that if (as you say) you think it is wrong to report criminal Social Security Benefit fraud; and you would disown anyone else who reported such fraud, then which other criminal activites, committed by someone on the dole would you regard as OK, and which do you feel that you and other citizens should report.

 

 

The only reason I wanted to explore this with you is because I'm struggling to see how, legally and morally, stealing money from other taxpayers by working whilst claiming dole is any different really than stealing from a shop, or stealing from a person in the street.

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce.

 

 

 

[nightrider]

BGD - 2008-11-26 2:17 PM

 

Hi Malcolm -

 

Keep your hair on mate - I think you missed my point. I only requested your views!

 

I asked you some questions, to explore your reasoning for you saying you think it's wrong to report one particular type of crime......I did not accuse you of anything.

Re-read my previous post.

 

 

What I was seeking to, and would still like to, understand is that if (as you say) you think it is wrong to report criminal Social Security Benefit fraud; and you would disown anyone else who reported such fraud, then which other criminal activites, committed by someone on the dole would you regard as OK, and which do you feel that you and other citizens should report.

 

 

The only reason I wanted to explore this with you is because I'm struggling to see how, legally and morally, stealing money from other taxpayers by working whilst claiming dole is any different really than stealing from a shop, or stealing from a person in the street.

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce.

 

 

 

Bruce,

Again read my posts, I have never said that I think it is wrong to inform on someone doing a little cash in hand work while on the dole, all I have said is that I, with a big capital 'I' could not bring myself to grass them up.

What anyone else does is up to them and their own concience I am not the judge, jury or executioner, I do not condone any criminal activity while someone is on the dole, if someone was blatently working full time while on the dole that is a different matter but I would still not grass them up, I would give them a mouthful though. I would sooner see the tax payers money go to our unemployed rather than see it squandered on a morally and illegal futile war in Iraq and Afghanistan where men women and children are being slaughtered on a daily basis using our tax payers money.

So in your eyes a man with young kids, short of money because he is on the dole is a heavy duty criminal because he takes a risk to earn a few quid to put shoes on his kids feet or a warm winters coat on their backs is out of order?

A lot of people on the dole are feckless and unemployable so unless you put them in a concentration camp we are stuck with them, a lot of guys finding themselves on the dole in this day and age are formally hard workers, tradesmen etc but one thing they have in common is that they are 'followers' and not 'leaders' that is to say they can follow instructions and turn out a first class job and give a fair days pay for a fair days work, but they cannot use initiative to further their career or job prospects and as such have low aspirations, I did nine years in the Kings own and part of my training was to cover the backs of your comrades, not to kick them when down.

[Brian Kirby]

There are no heroes here.  This is about our humanity, not our morality, or the legal system.  Inevitably, some of us will tend toward the absolutist response; that all law breakers should be prosecuted.  Others will tend to see grades of transgression; with some acts justifying prosecution, while others do not.  In effect, we are being invited to play Judge, and in doing so to choose how laws should be applied in particular cases.  In doing this, we are invited to take into account, before the facts, pleas of mitigation. 

All well and good, and pretty much what British Common Law concepts are based on.  If a law is broken, but the circumstances surrounding the breach create reasonable justification for the act, the penalty should be minimal.  If however the breach is flagrant, and possibly persistent, then the penalty should be more severe. 

In this context, the hypothetical case posed by BGD cannot really be answered, as there are no details.  How could one be certain that the individual was drawing the dole?  How could one be certain that they were doing jobs on the side?  How could one be certain that they were charging, as opposed to receiving gifts, for them?  How could one be certain that one's information was reliable, and not vindictive?  How could one be certain that the individual had not, in fact, declared this income?

It is easy to rush to judgement, but the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic for the accused.  Before anyone is reported for any such suspected offence, it is necessary to remember that the state payments are summarily, and immediately, suspended while the circumstances are investigated.  If the reported information eventually turns out to be incorrect, that individual will have suffered greatly, both financially and in terms of their standing in their community. 

This is not the arena for knee-jerk reactions, but for careful and measured thought.  One needs to be very, very sure indeed, that one has a full and proper grasp of all of the facts and all of the circumstances before one acts in this way.  Just having a conviction that one is paying more tax than necessary, because someone else may be on the fiddle, really doesn't provide adequate grounds for reporting them. 

I'm sure that for most people I'm rather tediously stating the obvious, but some of the responses above do make me wonder if the seriousness of the proposition has been fully grasped by all contributors.  In case I am now misunderstood, I do not mean that cases should never be reported, or that discovery should just be left to the authorities: just that one should proceed with great caution, based on incontrovertible evidence, and not just on hearsay or village pump gossip.   Sermon over :-)

[nightrider]

Brian Kirby - 2008-11-26 3:55 PM

There are no heroes here.  This is about our humanity, not our morality, or the legal system.  Inevitably, some of us will tend toward the absolutist response; that all law breakers should be prosecuted.  Others will tend to see grades of transgression; with some acts justifying prosecution, while others do not.  In effect, we are being invited to play Judge, and in doing so to choose how laws should be applied in particular cases.  In doing this, we are invited to take into account, before the facts, pleas of mitigation. 

All well and good, and pretty much what British Common Law concepts are based on.  If a law is broken, but the circumstances surrounding the breach create reasonable justification for the act, the penalty should be minimal.  If however the breach is flagrant, and possibly persistent, then the penalty should be more severe. 

In this context, the hypothetical case posed by BGD cannot really be answered, as there are no details.  How could one be certain that the individual was drawing the dole?  How could one be certain that they were doing jobs on the side?  How could one be certain that they were charging, as opposed to receiving gifts, for them?  How could one be certain that one's information was reliable, and not vindictive?  How could one be certain that the individual had not, in fact, declared this income?

It is easy to rush to judgement, but the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic for the accused.  Before anyone is reported for any such suspected offence, it is necessary to remember that the state payments are summarily, and immediately, suspended while the circumstances are investigated.  If the reported information eventually turns out to be incorrect, that individual will have suffered greatly, both financially and in terms of their standing in their community. 

This is not the arena for knee-jerk reactions, but for careful and measured thought.  One needs to be very, very sure indeed, that one has a full and proper grasp of all of the facts and all of the circumstances before one acts in this way.  Just having a conviction that one is paying more tax than necessary, because someone else may be on the fiddle, really doesn't provide adequate grounds for reporting them. 

I'm sure that for most people I'm rather tediously stating the obvious, but some of the responses above do make me wonder if the seriousness of the proposition has been fully grasped by all contributors.  In case I am now misunderstood, I do not mean that cases should never be reported, or that discovery should just be left to the authorities: just that one should proceed with great caution, based on incontrovertible evidence, and not just on hearsay or village pump gossip.   Sermon over :-)

Well said Brian, I applaud you, being on the dole is not the pleasurable situation some misguided people think it is. It is soul destroying, demeaning and humiliating compounded by some but not all scumbag jobcentre staff who hold a gun the the head of some claiments.

[howie]

Brian's use of the word 'vindictive' sums it all up for me. Who are we to judge others who find themselves in this unfourtunate position, and how would we balance our moral views if we too had to deal with this situation.

Many times in the past i,ve used the services of those in the building trade, where layoffs and temporary lack of employment means any extra income is always welcome, and will continue to do so in the future.

This may deprive the government of much needed income, but rather that than see these lads going without or wasting their days away until something else comes along. 'Black economy' it may be, but at least it gets the work done and money back into circulation.

[nightrider]

The ones that have made millions leading to the chaos we now find ourselves in are the ones who have got away Scot free, we, or not so much me personally are the ones left to suffer but it does not mean that I can't suffer for them. The jobless the homeless and the repossessed is nothing short of a scandal, the Thatcher edict of divide and conquer has come to the fore with one half of the working class informing on the other half, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone, or people in glass houses should not throw stones comes to mind.

This is a time for unity not dis-unity, those who may be in a job today are tomorrows unemployed, over 30,000 people are to be made redundant according to tonights news with the closure of two household name companies, Woolworths and MFI, will they be classed as dole scroungers shortly?

[bob b]

Of course, our political masters set a fine example to us mere mortals.

When you read of the 'scams' regarding expenses and allowances in UK and Europe parliments, I'm not surprised that people take the view that 'why shouldn't we make a bit on the side'.

[Brian Kirby]

But, if we want to be able to stare them in the eyes and demand better, we do need to have adopted superior standards for ourselves.  This argument is at the top of a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies endemic corruption and a collapse of democratic, and social, values.

Don't do as they do, hold true to your own standards, and question even those regularly.  Pious old git, aren't I?  :-)

[nightrider]

Brian Kirby - 2008-11-27 6:25 PM

But, if we want to be able to stare them in the eyes and demand better, we do need to have adopted superior standards for ourselves.  This argument is at the top of a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies endemic corruption and a collapse of democratic, and social, values.

Don't do as they do, hold true to your own standards, and question even those regularly.  Pious old git, aren't I?  :-)

Brian,It is all very well trying to keep your standards high but when everything you have worked for over the years is collapsing around you, high standards are the least of your worries, the paltry few quid that a guy makes on the side to put a bit of grub on the table pales into insignificance with the blatent fiddles of those who should know better.Several members of this group have slagged off the unemployed and I would just love to be a fly on the wall when or if ever they get the chop assuming they are still within the job market, it is said that 31000 people in the Woolworths and MFI closures will be out of work before Christmas, but what about the knock on effect? companies supplying Woolies and MFI are going to be rocking leading to more misery??