Free School Meals

Bats · Sep 29, 2013

technodup":3158ukz9 said:
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 · Sep 30, 2013

Bats":2a9hac9i said:
technodup":2a9hac9i said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 · Sep 30, 2013

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 · Sep 30, 2013

technodup":2c2h8jg5 said:
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 · Sep 30, 2013

Bats":3kol95tp said:
The point is, darling dear, that you don't act on what you don't know.

The point is you said...

Bats":3kol95tp said:
Here's a solid truth:only 0.7% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud.

Which isn't true.

MikeD":3kol95tp said:
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 DWP Report":3kol95tp said:
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 · Sep 30, 2013

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 · Sep 30, 2013

widowmaker":1v4l5f12 said:
Damn I thought I had logged onto a Bike forum :!:

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

Bats · Sep 30, 2013

technodup":3b5utd11 said:
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 · Sep 30, 2013

Bats":2uhnjugd said:
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 · Sep 30, 2013

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

Free School Meals

Bats

Senior Retro Guru

technodup

Senior Retro Guru

Bats

Senior Retro Guru

MikeD

Senior Retro Guru

technodup

Senior Retro Guru

widowmaker

technodup

Senior Retro Guru

Bats

Senior Retro Guru

technodup

Senior Retro Guru

Koupe

Senior Retro Guru

Similar threads

Latest posts