Free School Meals

[Bats]

Is only accounting for known fraud, otherwise how could they record it? If the DWP are finding 0.7% I think we can safely say the true amount is somewhat greater. Although how much nobody knows.

So your 'truth' isn't really the truth at all.

Can you? Can you really?

Do you just click your ruby red heels together and go "We can safely say... we can safely say... we can safely say..."

The stat I posted is the only thing here so far with actual scientific weight behind it. It has a margin of error, like everything else, but it is still the least wrong. Nobody has any actual evidence against it, just "well I feels" and "rifes".

Actual investigation and cold, rigidly defined numbers will always beat guesswork and blind faith. That's why the pope didn't win the space race.

 

[technodup]

Is only accounting for known fraud, otherwise how could they record it? If the DWP are finding 0.7% I think we can safely say the true amount is somewhat greater. Although how much nobody knows.

So your 'truth' isn't really the truth at all.

Can you? Can you really?

Do you just click your ruby red heels together and go "We can safely say... we can safely say... we can safely say..."

The stat I posted is the only thing here so far with actual scientific weight behind it. It has a margin of error, like everything else, but it is still the least wrong. Nobody has any actual evidence against it, just "well I feels" and "rifes".

Well obviously, it's Rumsfeld's known unknown.

Unless you believe the DWP identifies fraud with 100% accuracy then there is more fraud than you claim. I will safely say that all day long, whether you agree or not.

If HMRC claimed they caught 0.7% evading tax I bet you'd agree there were more.

 

[Bats]

The point is, darling dear, that you don't act on what you don't know.

Going "nurrr, that statistic is possibly slightly wrong, therefore it's crap!" is bloody useless when the alternative proposed is just guesswork. You're arguing that since we can never be totally accurate, we should just pull stuff out of our arses instead.

Which explains most tory viewpoints, really. Don't bother me with research, I've got a turtlehead sticking out.

 

[MikeD]

Is only accounting for known fraud, otherwise how could they record it?

Read it again (or possibly for the first time). That's _estimates_ of fraud, not actual known-and-counted cases. They _know_ they haven't got them all, that's how many they reckon they've not got. They could be wrong, but they've got margins of error and a degree of confidence that they're not a million miles off. The point is that there's at least a hint of an effort of rigorous analysis there, rather than tabloid-fuelled anecdotes.

It's just a pity that governments seem to pay more attention to the anecdotes than the numbers.

 

[technodup]

The point is, darling dear, that you don't act on what you don't know.

The point is you said...

Here's a solid truth:only 0.7% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud.

Which isn't true.

Read it again (or possibly for the first time). That's _estimates_ of fraud, not actual known-and-counted cases. They _know_ they haven't got them all, that's how many they reckon they've not got. They could be wrong, but they've got margins of error and a degree of confidence that they're not a million miles off.

I suggest you read it. By definition they haven't a clue what goes unreported.

The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because
fraud is, by its nature, a covert activity, complex official error can be
difficult to identify and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases
cannot be proven. For example, unreported earnings in the informal
economy will be much harder to detect than those in the formal economy.

What is good news is that is they get workfare off the ground fraud is likely to reduce. It's harder to work on the side when you've to turn up somewhere official every day.

*runs away*

 

[widowmaker]

Holly smoke Batman

Another Willy Wanging, using big words and rolling eyes emoticon to get my point across thread - well done lads

Damn I thought I had logged onto a Bike forum :!:

 

[technodup]

Damn I thought I had logged onto a Bike forum :!:

Confused internet user in off topic thread in off topic section shock.

 

[Bats]

What is good news is that is they get workfare off the ground fraud is likely to reduce. It's harder to work on the side when you've to turn up somewhere official every day.

*runs away*

Well done for finding the bright side of slavery.

 

[technodup]

Well done for finding the bright side of slavery.

I'm finding the bright side in people who haven't found work in 24 months, not in a pub, shop, call centre, petrol station, supermarket, farm, etc in the whole of the UK, being compelled to do something for their keep.

If the squealers on CIF are right and it ends up about £2.30/h I'd say that's about right. After all these are the folk that can't demonstrate to an prospective employer they are worth minimum wage. In two years of supposedly trying.

 

[Koupe]

Historically, slaves never received any state hand-outs, as far as I'm aware.