Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
1229 undercover police. Why?
Topic Started: Oct 14 2014, 08:02 AM (1,495 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
According to this on page 9

http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/an-inspection-of-undercover-policing-in-england-and-wales.pdf
An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales
© HMIC 2014
ISBN: 978-1-78246-515-7

From the data that we received we consider the total number of undercover officers to be 1,229.


I find it VERY difficult to believe there is a genuine need for that number of police officers to be working undercover.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yep they are not all bunny huggers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 14 2014, 09:52 AM
Steve K
Oct 14 2014, 08:09 AM
RoofGardener
Oct 14 2014, 08:04 AM
1229 undercover policemen/women, against a population of around 50,000,000 ?

I dunno Papa', that doesn't sound unreasonable to me ?
with the terrorist threat we have it seems rather low IMHO
I'm with Steve on this one.

For the record: I don't for one second believe the media rhetoric about how prevalent benefit fraud is; but if using undercover agents allows the the government to curtail benefit fraud and so increase the pool of money available to genuine benefit claimants then I can't honestly see anything wrong with that.

All The Best
Any savings that can be made to benefit fraud to make more money available to those really in need and entitled to help can only be applauded, however there are bigger fish for the cops and spooks to fry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 14 2014, 09:11 AM
RJD
Oct 14 2014, 09:09 AM
papasmurf
Oct 14 2014, 09:05 AM
RJD
Oct 14 2014, 08:54 AM
Maybe something to do with clamping down on serial benefit fraudsters?
RJD, undercover police are used to infiltrate organisations. That serial benefit fraudsters don't exist is something you must have missed out on when it was discussed on the other forum.
Lighten up Mr Smurf, lighten up.
Not in his DNA, digging holes is

PS really does not know what his complaint is.
!jk! !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 16 2014, 04:30 PM

Debbie Vincent says she has been made a scapegoat ...


Thank the Lord for under cover Police, should be more of them, !clp!


If this wierdo had anything to do with the placement of incendiary devices under the vehicles parked in Bristol University Medical School's car park in the 1980's I'd personally dig out my swann morton rusty as it is and cut of rather more than he/she has already had removed ... leaving the bits that allow him/her to scream until last.

(the bastards that did that are still at large, unfortunately)
Edited by johnofgwent, Oct 16 2014, 04:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 04:40 PM
That serial benefit fraudsters don't exist is something you must have missed out on when it was discussed on the other forum.
Serial benefit fraudster jailed again for second scam.
Patrick Allen, 39, received the housing benefit for properties in Hornsey and Islington during the ten-year fraud – despite splashing out on a £250,000 home in Lincoln Road, Enfield and holding more than £48,000 in savings.


Serial benefits cheat who built up property portfolio in London and Kenya ordered to repay £300,000.
Gladys Popoola claimed the 'full range' of benefits, despite the fact that she had three jobs and her husband worked – building up a half million pound property portfolio.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319059/Serial-benefits-cheat-built-property-portfolio-London-Kenya-ordered-repay-300-000.html#ixzz3GKNsqmU1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


We have two free papers delivered every week, hardly a week passes without another Benefit fraud case prosecution.
Edited by jaguar, Oct 16 2014, 04:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 07:13 AM
It is perfectly legal and legitimate for a charity to express concerns about emergent properties of government policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300222/cc9text.pdf


That document is dated March 2008, and I assure you not a word of that was the case when the Charity Commissioners sent me the documents to form and register an educational charity in 1994, nor were any such shenaligans allowed when I signed over certain financial interests to one dedicated to medical research in the mid 80's

How typical of New F*cking Labour to allow political parties to receive financial support from "charities".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 16 2014, 04:58 PM



We have two free papers delivered every week, hardly a week passes without another Benefit fraud case prosecution.
That means nothing, there are around 67000 prosecutions a year, that is nothing compared to the many millions of claimants as a percentage.
There still has yet to be anyone prosecuted three times for benefit fraud.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 16 2014, 04:58 PM
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 04:40 PM
That serial benefit fraudsters don't exist is something you must have missed out on when it was discussed on the other forum.
Serial benefit fraudster jailed again for second scam.
Patrick Allen, 39, received the housing benefit for properties in Hornsey and Islington during the ten-year fraud – despite splashing out on a £250,000 home in Lincoln Road, Enfield and holding more than £48,000 in savings.


Serial benefits cheat who built up property portfolio in London and Kenya ordered to repay £300,000.
Gladys Popoola claimed the 'full range' of benefits, despite the fact that she had three jobs and her husband worked – building up a half million pound property portfolio.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319059/Serial-benefits-cheat-built-property-portfolio-London-Kenya-ordered-repay-300-000.html#ixzz3GKNsqmU1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


We have two free papers delivered every week, hardly a week passes without another Benefit fraud case prosecution.
Errm not my quote, give you one guess who said it and keeps saying it over and over and over and over again, I have a good idea what his next one will be when he reads your post ;D
Edited by Stan Still, Oct 16 2014, 06:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 05:38 PM
jaguar
Oct 16 2014, 04:58 PM



We have two free papers delivered every week, hardly a week passes without another Benefit fraud case prosecution.
That means nothing, there are around 67000 prosecutions a year, that is nothing compared to the many millions of claimants as a percentage.
There still has yet to be anyone prosecuted three times for benefit fraud.
In certain states of America I believer three strikes and you are out of circulation for good, not a bad idea
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:34 PM
In certain states of America I believer three strikes and you are out of circulation for good, not a bad idea
But not one person have ever been charged with a third offence in Britain and only a few charged with two. It was yet another sound bite by Iain Duncan Smith, that in reality would effect no-one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 06:37 PM
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:34 PM
In certain states of America I believer three strikes and you are out of circulation for good, not a bad idea
But not one person have ever been charged with a third offence in Britain and only a few charged with two. It was yet another sound bite by Iain Duncan Smith, that in reality would effect no-one.
Twice is more than enough that money is meant for those in need, why not set a level of pubic money they can steal without being punished at all, what do you reckon 10 grand a year or under with a get out of jail free card thrown in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gnikkk
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
There's a lot of undercover nefarious activity. Slave trade, Drugs, Fraud, Gangs, ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Four more charged today with plotting terrorists acts in London, allegedly they were planning an attack on a Police Station or a Territorial Army Base.

I know one thing for sure it was not the local beat bobby swapping his uniform for a pair of jeans and a t shirt for a coupe of days that managed to chat his way into their company without being sussed.

Professional Specialists at work.
Edited by Stan Still, Oct 17 2014, 04:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Gnikkk
Oct 17 2014, 05:56 AM
There's a lot of undercover nefarious activity. Slave trade, Drugs, Fraud, Gangs, ...
Yes and that is just the tip of the iceberg
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:32 PM
Errm not my quote, give you one guess who said it and keeps saying it over and over and over and over again, I have a good idea what his next one will be when he reads your post ;
Sorry about that Stan, please accept my apology.

It was meant as a reply to Mr Smurf
Edited by jaguar, Oct 17 2014, 04:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 17 2014, 04:51 PM
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:32 PM
Errm not my quote, give you one guess who said it and keeps saying it over and over and over and over again, I have a good idea what his next one will be when he reads your post ;
Sorry about that Stan, please accept my apology.

It was meant as a reply to Mr Smurf
Its not a problem I was not offended at all but thanks for the apology anyway, this quote system is confusing at times.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 06:37 PM
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:34 PM
In certain states of America I believer three strikes and you are out of circulation for good, not a bad idea
But not one person have ever been charged with a third offence in Britain and only a few charged with two. It was yet another sound bite by Iain Duncan Smith, that in reality would effect no-one.
As these benefit fraudsters are getting far more clever and devious, you could say nobody has yet been caught for a third offence.

The fact that only a few have been charged is a few to many, remember as you always keep saying, it's the poor and vulnerable that these fraudsters are depriving.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 17 2014, 05:03 PM
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 06:37 PM
Stan Still
Oct 16 2014, 06:34 PM
In certain states of America I believer three strikes and you are out of circulation for good, not a bad idea
But not one person have ever been charged with a third offence in Britain and only a few charged with two. It was yet another sound bite by Iain Duncan Smith, that in reality would effect no-one.
As these benefit fraudsters are getting far more clever and devious, you could say nobody has yet been caught for a third offence.

The fact that only a few have been charged is a few to many, remember as you always keep saying, it's the poor and vulnerable that these fraudsters are depriving.

That is the problem with fraud and deception it is hard and slow to uncover they are not smash and grab thieves that everyone can see what they have done instantly.

Each case of fraud and deception may take years to come to light, some may never be found and difficult to prove who did it and exactly how, or how much fraud and deception has actually has occurred.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 06:42 AM


Each case of fraud and deception may take years to come to light, some may never be found and difficult to prove who did it and exactly how, or how much fraud and deception has actually has occurred.
Really? The mind set, you and others have amuses me, the reason there is a long delay, (can be a very long delay,) is people getting benefits when the apply for them is the checks that are carried out by JobCentre Plus and the DWP.
You are years out of date with your mindset, there are now so many databases that can be cross checked an ordinary claimant stands no chance.
If there was the massive problem with fraud you think there is how come the "success" rate for the "shop a benefit fraud" hotline is only 0.31%.
In other word 99.69% of the people who phone to report a fraud, are wrong, or malicious or vindictive or all three.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:14 AM
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 06:42 AM


Each case of fraud and deception may take years to come to light, some may never be found and difficult to prove who did it and exactly how, or how much fraud and deception has actually has occurred.
Really? The mind set, you and others have amuses me, the reason there is a long delay, (can be a very long delay,) is people getting benefits when the apply for them is the checks that are carried out by JobCentre Plus and the DWP.
You are years out of date with your mindset, there are now so many databases that can be cross checked an ordinary claimant stands no chance.
If there was the massive problem with fraud you think there is how come the "success" rate for the "shop a benefit fraud" hotline is only 0.31%.
In other word 99.69% of the people who phone to report a fraud, are wrong, or malicious or vindictive or all three.
Its called difference of opinions which are usually formed by actual personal experiences, where you find money you will find fraud and deception you have I believe have just experienced that in a small way, you do not amuse me your arrogant patronising condescending style of debate offends me.

I suggest you read your posts in just this thread and others, you have successfully proved that you do not have much of a clue of what is going on around you in the real world, a gentle hint your imagination is not a real portrait of the world its a self induced illusion.

You are also grumpy in the mornings

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 07:31 AM
Its called difference of opinions which are usually formed by actual personal experiences,
Personal experience is completely useless when it comes to extrapolating personal experience to be true for the national situation.
If I based my opinion on personal experience, crime would be next to non existent, homosexuals would be people I only ever see on TV, and if I based it on local experience, black people would be people I only ever see on TV as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 07:31 AM
you have successfully proved that you do not have much of a clue of what is going on around you in the real world,
I am afraid it is several people on this forum who don't have a clue what is going in the real word they seem totally insulated from how dire the situation is.
With now 18 million people struggling with day to day finances how they are avoiding noticing that I really do not know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Weird posts you have excelled yourself and so early in the day
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 07:45 AM
Weird posts you have excelled yourself and so early in the day
There is nothing weird about those posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Perhaps you are not able to see it, but I certainly can
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Benefit fraudsters are increasingly more often part of 'organised' deception. As with immigrant groups having their own 'advisers' on how to claim the maximum both legally and illegally. East European groups, Asian groups, they all have their own help systems designed to exploit the system. I mention it because to my mind it is these groups that ought to be easiest to detect and examine.
The individual fraudsters, the sort that make the headlines, are fewer and harder to detect. Being able to have multiple IDs, addresses, imaginary children, etc ..... oh; and disabilities, all require means beyond most people but not so organised thieves.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 18 2014, 09:30 AM

The individual fraudsters, the sort that make the headlines, are fewer and harder to detect. Being able to have multiple IDs, addresses, imaginary children, etc ..... oh; and disabilities, all require means beyond most people but not so organised thieves.

Individual fraudsters are very easy to detect and disability benefit fraud is so low it is statistically insignificant. That is why the rare cases of it get headline news in the Daily Heil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 18 2014, 09:30 AM
Benefit fraudsters are increasingly more often part of 'organised' deception. As with immigrant groups having their own 'advisers' on how to claim the maximum both legally and illegally. East European groups, Asian groups, they all have their own help systems designed to exploit the system. I mention it because to my mind it is these groups that ought to be easiest to detect and examine.
The individual fraudsters, the sort that make the headlines, are fewer and harder to detect. Being able to have multiple IDs, addresses, imaginary children, etc ..... oh; and disabilities, all require means beyond most people but not so organised thieves.

I fully agree organised gangs are more difficult to catch and confirm their true identities, individual ones are easier to detect but the common theme with them is that it has taken a number of years to catch and convict them during which time they have obtained in some case large amounts of money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 09:50 AM
I fully agree organised gangs are more difficult to catch and confirm their true identities, individual ones are easier to detect but the common theme with them is that it has taken a number of years to catch and convict them during which time they have obtained in some case large amounts of money.
Given how little benefits are and the amount of churn in the benefits system, anyone on out of work benefits for much over a year comes under very close scrutiny by JobCentre Plus and the DWP. Your definition of a large amount of money is I suspect somewhat different to mine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Your definition of a large amount of money is I suspect somewhat different to mine.[/quote]

I would be interested in what you consider your definition of a large amount of money is?

My definition is, anyone on benefits that can afford fancy cars and buy houses is most certainly large.
Edited by jaguar, Oct 18 2014, 11:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:14 AM
. . .If there was the massive problem with fraud you think there is how come the "success" rate for the "shop a benefit fraud" hotline is only 0.31%.
In other word 99.69% of the people who phone to report a fraud, are wrong, or malicious or vindictive or all three.
Reference please

But you might want to click This Link first where Ranger demolished it as a false proposition you're making by only including those who had at that time been successfully convicted and excludes those that agree to pay back their mistake to avoid conviction.

And then of course you know that even on that limited definition you are using a 2011 figure and labelling it as current data (my calendar says it's now late 2014). A quick google will show you it's significantly climbed since then.

But of course you would never post false data would you.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 12:48 PM


And then of course you know that even on that limited definition you are using a 2011 figure and labelling it as current data (my calendar says it's now late 2014). A quick google will show you it's significantly climbed since then.

But of course you would never post false data would you.



If you know of a more up to date dataset than the Hansard one I quoted on the other forum please feel free.
I suspect the results won't be much different, certainly not anything like you expect it to be.
Because I find it VERY odd that Neighbourhood Watch did a big fanfare job about taking part in the "Shop a benefit system" two years ago, and has been very quiet about it ever since. I had a big row with them about it, at the time, precisely because of the sheer number of timewasters it would attract.
Edited by papasmurf, Oct 18 2014, 12:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 12:48 PM


But you might want to click This Link first where Ranger demolished it as a false proposition



That link takes me to a debate about tax evaders.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 12:59 PM
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 12:48 PM


But you might want to click This Link first where Ranger demolished it as a false proposition



That link takes me to a debate about tax evaders.
If you read the link properly, the debate is about tax evasion and avoidance and benefit fraudsters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 18 2014, 01:27 PM
If you read the link properly, the debate is about tax evasion and avoidance and benefit fraudsters.
That is not where the reference takes me.
In any case you need a calculator even Fullfact can only make the "success rate" around 4%

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/DWP_fraud_hotline_success_rate_prosecutions-3167

Using the figure of 253,708 over one year, this represents an average of 695 calls per day. It is possible that this is the figure to which the article was referring.

Next, to consider the number of benefit cheat prosecutions.

In the House of Commons last Monday, Mr Duncan Smith referred to a strategy started in 2010 to tackle benefit fraud using mobile regional taskforces which focussed on claimants in high fraud areas. This scheme, he said, meant that, “since October, from case cleansing alone we have saved more than £100 million.”

He also said that almost 10,000 benefit fraudsters were prosecuted in 2010/11, up from 8,200 the year before. While the Express attributes this to the same time period as the savings of £100 million, it is more likely to refer to the 2010/11 financial year.

The Express uses these statistics to show an increase of 20 per cent in prosecutions of benefit cheats under the coalition Government as compared to the last year of the Labour government. The increase of 1,800 prosecutions represents a 22 per cent increase from 8,200.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 12:59 PM
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 12:48 PM


But you might want to click This Link first where Ranger demolished it as a false proposition



That link takes me to a debate about tax evaders.
yes you couldn't be bothered to read it properly and see rangers reply 64

author=ranger121 link=topic=34386.msg903504#msg903504 date=1392941420
 

As noted in the comments section, the 2500 are probably just replacing some of the reductions in staff over the years, in order to try and plug a somewhat massive hole that's been brought to their attention.

As already described, the definition of what a "fraudster" actually is is rather tightly made, and this applies to the benefits system as well.

The 0.3% represents those that are actually convicted of fraud, rather than the huge numbers that make "mistakes" which MAY be uncovered as a result of a call "dobbing them in".



to your reply 59

author=papasmurf link=topic=34386.msg903488#msg903488 date=1392938243
 

Steve on the Daily Politics (BBC2) a few months ago, a senior representative of HMRC was asked a specific question by Andrew Neil about how many extra staff has been employed to chase up tax evaders since HMRC had got the information from the whistle blowers and got the answer:- "we are doubling the team from 4 people to 8. It was one of the few occasions several moment passed before Andrew Neil could recover from a state of shock and carry on with the interview.
I am real about the Stasi shop your neighbour army, the "Shop a benefit fraud" hotline gets hundreds of thousands of calls every year, only 0.31% of those calls are right.


And your point was?




Edited by Steve K, Oct 18 2014, 01:39 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 12:56 PM
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 12:48 PM


And then of course you know that even on that limited definition you are using a 2011 figure and labelling it as current data (my calendar says it's now late 2014). A quick google will show you it's significantly climbed since then.

But of course you would never post false data would you.



If you know of a more up to date dataset than the Hansard one I quoted on the other forum please feel free.
I suspect the results won't be much different, certainly not anything like you expect it to be.
Because I find it VERY odd that Neighbourhood Watch did a big fanfare job about taking part in the "Shop a benefit system" two years ago, and has been very quiet about it ever since. I had a big row with them about it, at the time, precisely because of the sheer number of timewasters it would attract.
So you post something you have no link to back it up with. Why should we see that as anything other than wild arsed guessing by either you or someone you borrowed the accusation from?



BTW that 0.31% first appears in an ePetition launched Nov 15th 2011 with no back. So it is of course irrelevant to today, proved by ranger to be wrong even then and a recent link says it is now 4.4%

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stef-benstead/benefit-fraud-campaign_b_4535218.html


But no you never post false data do you? Do you not realise how much harm posting false data does to the causes you align yourself with?




Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 18 2014, 01:37 PM

And your point was?




The vast majority of those who phone the shop a benefit fraud hotline are wrong. Even Fullfact can only make the "success rate" around 4%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 16 2014, 10:23 AM
johnofgwent
Oct 16 2014, 06:55 AM
Tytoalba
Oct 15 2014, 11:22 AM
Affa
Oct 15 2014, 11:02 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
That is to be established, and many organisations are infiltrated to be used for political purposes. by the evil intended.,
/8/

"That is to be established"

My thoughts exactly.


I'm thinking Greenpeace, Fathers4Justice, Animal Rights (R&D), Cruel Sports (Fox Hunting), etc. Environmental groups pose no serious threat to society imo.

I'd be critical of the MET if it wasn't infiltrating Religious extremists, organised crime, or Wacko organisations - like the CBI, that have the intention of harming or exploiting society.




Animal rights groups were releasing animals into the wild, including mink, broke into research laboritories, and caused serious damage to others. They also threatened others with assault.
Didnt one group dig up a grave and hide the body for thir own propaganda purposes? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1517356/Pensioners-body-stolen-by-animal-rights-group-is-found.html

Worth infiltrating or not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 18 2014, 03:30 PM
Animal rights groups were releasing animals into the wild, including mink, broke into research laboritories, and caused serious damage to others. They also threatened others with assault.
You are confusing animal rights campaigners with animal rights terrorists the two are separate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply