On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data Protection
and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New Clause 34 and
New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data Protection
and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New Clause 34 and
New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you
can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:32:54 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
On 2 Dec 2023 at 19:59:50 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:32:54 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
Simply not the case. It is far from uncommon for the police to make the facts fit apparent guilt. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
If your card's marked for whatever reason the risk increases exponentially.
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New
Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to declare
any assets.
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through
parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you
can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with a different policy on this matter that has any chance of significant influence under the FPTP system.
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you
can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you
can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org>
Wrote in message:
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by deception?
Please be explicit.
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New
Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder will
usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to declare
any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the state.
This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have working
partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent income.
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> >> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through
parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you >>> can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with a
different policy on this matter that has any chance of significant influence >> under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to tolerate benefit fraud?
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" ><cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>> wrote:
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through
parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you >>> can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few
years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with a
different policy on this matter that has any chance of significant influence >> under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to tolerate benefit
fraud?
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder
will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to
declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So
why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the
state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless
they lie about it, anyway.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder
will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to
declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So
why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the
state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless
they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >> > My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" ><cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>> wrote:
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through >>>> parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you >>>> can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few >>>> years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with a
different policy on this matter that has any chance of significant influence
under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to tolerate benefit
fraud?
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New
Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder will
usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to declare
any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the state.
This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have working
partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent income.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder
will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So
why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the
state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless
they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by
deception?
Please be explicit.
That, as you know, is absurd and no-one has suggested it.
The question is
whether we are happy for every aspect of our lives to be spied on and investigated when there *isn't* any reason to suspect wrongdoing.
FWIW, I
think people on social security have no more and no less right to privacy than
the resst of us;
but the point is that this spying is not confined to people
on benefits.
They are just mentioned to make those of us not on benefits feel
that there is no problem.
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be stupid to believe that.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder will >>> usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to declare
any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So why
should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the state.
This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have working
partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless they lie about it, anyway.
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get
through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they
are doing, you can vote them out. However that opportunity only
comes around every few years and even then you need a lot of other
people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with
a different policy on this matter that has any chance of
significant influence under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to
tolerate benefit fraud?
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder
will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So
why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the
state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless
they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems
odd.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:03:19 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Ah but they have "paid all their life for it" unlike feckless, workshy, probably criminal youths.
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rThere can be more reasons for being on UC other than just
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
unemployment.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit
(and there are more beyond that list).
On 03/12/2023 04:10 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data >>>>>>>> Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are >>>>>>>> suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is >>>>>>>> necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on >>>>>> benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder >>>>>> will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank >>>>> account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So >>>>> why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the >>>>> state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless >>>> they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
Not odd at all. Universal Credit was specifically designed to cater for people who are in work and for people who are not in work.
Entitlement (if any) is a matter of arithmetic.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:10:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments >>>>>>>> (New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are >>>>>>>> suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is >>>>>>>> necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on >>>>>> benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder >>>>>> will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank >>>>> account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So >>>>> why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the >>>>> state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless >>>> they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems
odd.
yes and yes.
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 03/12/2023 01:45 pm, Iain wrote:
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
What motive do you ascribe to what you claim?
Other than investigating possible benefit and income tax / NI fraud, I mean?
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 03/12/2023 01:45 pm, Iain wrote:
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
What motive do you ascribe to what you claim?
Other than investigating possible benefit and income tax / NI fraud, I mean? >>
Then we need to make sure that this is included in the legislation.
Oh, hang on. They can already do that!
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:40:05 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:10:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data >>>>>>>>> Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments >>>>>>>>> (New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are >>>>>>>>> suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is >>>>>>>>> necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on >>>>>>> benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder >>>>>>> will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank >>>>>> account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So >>>>>> why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the >>>>>> state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have >>>>>> working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless >>>>> they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems >>> odd.
yes and yes.
Ok then, my point was that household income is taken into account so if the government has a right to trawl for inconsistencies through the claimant's bank account this implies that they have a right to trawl through their partner's bank account too. Someone expressed surprise that this should be so,
and I was answering that.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:06:19 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rThere can be more reasons for being on UC other than just
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
unemployment.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit
(and there are more beyond that list).
Are there any where it is not means tested?
The following quote from that page
would seem to exclude anyone with a good wage coming into the household.
" What Universal Credit is
Universal Credit is a payment to help with your living costs. It’s paid monthly - or twice a month for some people in Scotland.
You may be able to get it if you’re on a low income, out of work or you cannot
work."
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:12:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:03:19 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Ah but they have "paid all their life for it" unlike feckless, workshy,
probably criminal youths.
Not *all* have.
In much the same way that some benefits recipients haven't paid into the system.
I feel it's a similar sort of issue where people who come here are "immigrants" but Brits who go there are "ex-pats".
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 01:12:51 +0000
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:Is it because it pleases the right wing of their parties by punishing
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get
through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they
are doing, you can vote them out. However that opportunity only
comes around every few years and even then you need a lot of other
people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with
a different policy on this matter that has any chance of
significant influence under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to
tolerate benefit fraud?
the poor, while at the same time having little effect on they and their friends ability to conduct much more profitable and sophisticated fraud.
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New >>>>>> Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on
benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder
will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to
declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank
account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So
why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the
state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have
working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless
they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:03:19 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Ah but they have "paid all their life for it" unlike feckless, workshy, probably criminal youths.
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>
Wrote in message:
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by deception?
our rights go right out of the window!
Please be explicit.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:11:25 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:10 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:04:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 10:26:20 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:52:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 20:43:35 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 17:32:54 +0000, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data >>>>>>>>> Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments (New
Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are >>>>>>>>> suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is >>>>>>>>> necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
How will that square with joint accounts ?
Guilt (or postulated guilt) by association, presumably. If being on >>>>>>> benefits is grounds for investigation then the joint account holder >>>>>>> will usually benefitting from the same income, and just as liable to >>>>>>> declare any assets.
No.
What will happen is the Daily Mail will find an example where a bank >>>>>> account has "plenty" for 2 in it even before benefits are paid in. So >>>>>> why should person "B" who can be supported by "A" be supported by the >>>>>> state. This could be the case for many benefits claimants who have >>>>>> working partners. Especially if the working partner gets a decent
income.
People with working partners do not get means-tested benefits!! Unless >>>>> they lie about it, anyway.
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
Not odd at all. Universal Credit was specifically designed to cater for
people who are in work and for people who are not in work.
Entitlement (if any) is a matter of arithmetic.
Absolutely true. But if one partner has an average wage and they have no children it seems unlikely to be available unless perhaps they live somewhere with extraordinarily high rents.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 01:12:51 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get through >>>> parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they are doing, you >>>> can vote them out. However that opportunity only comes around every few >>>> years and even then you need a lot of other people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with a
different policy on this matter that has any chance of significant influence
under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to tolerate
benefit fraud?
Benefit fraud is fundamentally irrelevant; it is just the spin to make loss of
privacy acceptable to the jealous and mean-minded who will think it does not apply to them.
On 03/12/2023 06:00 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:06:19 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rThere can be more reasons for being on UC other than just
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
unemployment.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit
(and there are more beyond that list).
Are there any where it is not means tested?
I'll answer that, if it helps.
The answer is "No, there are no circumstances in which Universal Credit
is not means-tested".
It's a means-tested benefit, like National Assistance, Supplementary
Benefit and Income Support before it.
The following quote from that page
would seem to exclude anyone with a good wage coming into the household.
How?
" What Universal Credit is
Universal Credit is a payment to help with your living costs. It’s paid
monthly - or twice a month for some people in Scotland.
You may be able to get it if you’re on a low income, out of work or you cannot
work."
Are you saying that "someone with a good wage" should not become part of
a household where someone is in receipt of UC?
On 03/12/2023 01:38 pm, Steve wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 01:12:51 +0000
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:Is it because it pleases the right wing of their parties by punishing
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments >>>>>> (New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get
through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they
are doing, you can vote them out. However that opportunity only
comes around every few years and even then you need a lot of other
people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with
a different policy on this matter that has any chance of
significant influence under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to
tolerate benefit fraud?
the poor, while at the same time having little effect on they and their
friends ability to conduct much more profitable and sophisticated fraud.
So you think it's not wrong to obtain social security by deception.
OK, it's brave of you to admit it, I suppose.
On 03/12/2023 04:12 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:03:19 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Ah but they have "paid all their life for it" unlike feckless, workshy,
probably criminal youths.
Retirement Pension (nowadays apparently called "state pension", even
though it was always paid by the "state") is not a means-tested benefit.
That's the difference, and it is crucial.
The rate at which it is paid is based upon data available to the
Pensions Service via their access to National Insurance records and
other DWP data. The data can't be incorrect* and the other resources available to a pensioner do not affect entitlement.
In that regard, it's a bit like Child Benefit.
[* I suppose it would be theoretically possible to claim RP fraudulently
in the name of a deceased person. And likewise, possible to claim Child Benefit iro a child who doesn't even exist. That latter won't work with pensions, though, since entitlement is based upon a National Insurance contribution history.]
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 05:55:00 GMT, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 19:59:50 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:32:54 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
Simply not the case. It is far from uncommon for the police to make the facts
fit apparent guilt. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
If your card's marked for whatever reason the risk increases exponentially.
I had hoped I didn't need smilies in this august group.
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child benefit
as a benefit claimant either!
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 03/12/2023 01:45 pm, Iain wrote:
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
What motive do you ascribe to what you claim?
Other than investigating possible benefit and income tax / NI fraud, I mean? >>
Then we need to make sure that this is included in the legislation.
Oh, hang on. They can already do that!
On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 10:30:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>
Wrote in message:
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
deception?
Please be explicit.
Of course there's no right to obtain benefits by deception, any more than there is to break any other law, e.g. handling stolen goods or tax evasion. This is not about the crimes themselves, this is about the limits on the state in enforcing the law.
If there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state can (in my view entirely rightly) carry out intrusive investigations, e.g. obtaining bank statements to look for evidence of deception, raiding premises to look for stolen goods, demanding to seethe books for businesses to determine whether there's been tax evasion, etc. If there's no reasonable suspicion though, most of those rights fall away. I wouldn't be happy with the idea of random spot checks of peoples' houses to look for stolen goods -
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
The retirement pension is a benefit. It is not means tested, but until very recently it could be taken away if the state was paying for your living expenses for instance in hospital for more than 6 weeks. I don't know if it is
still taken away from prisoners, but it would not surprise me. So it is not an absolute entitlement and investigation to see if you are not entitled is just as justifiable as for any other state benefit.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:44:39 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:00 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:06:19 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rThere can be more reasons for being on UC other than just
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:04:02 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
My lad was on UC despite his girlfriend working.
Was he living with her? If so was her wage very low? Otherwise it seems odd.
unemployment.
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit
(and there are more beyond that list).
Are there any where it is not means tested?
I'll answer that, if it helps.
The answer is "No, there are no circumstances in which Universal Credit
is not means-tested".
It's a means-tested benefit, like National Assistance, Supplementary
Benefit and Income Support before it.
The following quote from that page
would seem to exclude anyone with a good wage coming into the household.
How?
" What Universal Credit is
Universal Credit is a payment to help with your living costs. It’s paid >>> monthly - or twice a month for some people in Scotland.
You may be able to get it if you’re on a low income, out of work or you cannot
work."
Are you saying that "someone with a good wage" should not become part of
a household where someone is in receipt of UC?
Of course they can, but if they are living as partners then they will no longer be eligible for UC.
Other same household relationships are more complex
and I don't know the exact rules.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:17:36 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:12 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 16:03:19 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they >>>> are also benefit claimants.
Ah but they have "paid all their life for it" unlike feckless, workshy,
probably criminal youths.
Retirement Pension (nowadays apparently called "state pension", even
though it was always paid by the "state") is not a means-tested benefit.
That's the difference, and it is crucial.
The rate at which it is paid is based upon data available to the
Pensions Service via their access to National Insurance records and
other DWP data. The data can't be incorrect* and the other resources
available to a pensioner do not affect entitlement.
In that regard, it's a bit like Child Benefit.
[* I suppose it would be theoretically possible to claim RP fraudulently
in the name of a deceased person. And likewise, possible to claim Child
Benefit iro a child who doesn't even exist. That latter won't work with
pensions, though, since entitlement is based upon a National Insurance
contribution history.]
There are circumstances when state pension is no longer payable, or no longer payable at the same rate, so investigation of all of us to ensure that none of
those circumstances exist seems to be in order; if we are in the business of investigating people about whom there are no grounds for suspicion.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:39:20 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:38 pm, Steve wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 01:12:51 +0000
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 10:38 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:Is it because it pleases the right wing of their parties by punishing
On 2 Dec 2023 at 21:37:26 GMT, "Colin Bignell"
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 02/12/2023 17:32, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans >>>>>>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data >>>>>>> Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments >>>>>>> (New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social >>>>>>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
They are welcome to inspect mine any time.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is >>>>>>> necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP >>>>>>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
The government has long had the power to do anything it can get
through parliament. While, in theory, if you don't like what they
are doing, you can vote them out. However that opportunity only
comes around every few years and even then you need a lot of other >>>>>> people to agree with you.
And even more of an insurmountable obstacle is finding a party with
a different policy on this matter that has any chance of
significant influence under the FPTP system.
Do you know WHY no respectable UK political part is prepared to
tolerate benefit fraud?
the poor, while at the same time having little effect on they and their
friends ability to conduct much more profitable and sophisticated fraud.
So you think it's not wrong to obtain social security by deception.
OK, it's brave of you to admit it, I suppose.
As you well know, he simply did not say that. He was suggesting that those who
pay their mates hundreds of millons of pounds to supply non-compliant PPE or tens of billions to supply a non-functional track and trace could be at least an equally important target, rather than immune to investigation.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We
would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all our traditional privacy against their will.
For the hard of thinking, the police have had the power to look at the private
documents of people who are *actual suspects* since forever. This new law was not needed to enable that. The secret intelligence services have had the power to access *non-suspects* data in proportion as they have been able to analyse it in the last twenty or thirty years.
You may find it reassuring that they say they are only going to use it to catch paedophiles and benefit cheats - I don't believe it.
In other news, publishing obscure and dubious claims about what some zionist organisations did in the '30s is now apparently a crime, rather than just tasteless. They'll be after the climate deniers next - and that's half the gammons on these uk.* newsgroups!
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 03/12/2023 06:27 pm, Iain wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 03/12/2023 01:45 pm, Iain wrote:
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
What motive do you ascribe to what you claim?
Other than investigating possible benefit and income tax / NI fraud, I mean?
Then we need to make sure that this is included in the legislation.
Oh, hang on. They can already do that!
So what's the problem?
Do you really think that civil servants will spend all day looking up random bank accounts for the hell of it?
If you think that, why do you think it?
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:44:30 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
Seeing that existing ISPs have to save all their customer's data and provide it to the government I am not sure quite what difference you think that would make.
On 03/12/2023 06:35 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 10:30:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>
Wrote in message:
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
deception?
Please be explicit.
Of course there's no right to obtain benefits by deception, any more than there is to break any other law, e.g. handling stolen goods or tax evasion. This is not about the crimes themselves, this is about the limits on the state in enforcing the law.The closer to 100%, the better, I suggest.
see the books for businesses to determine whether there's been tax evasion, etc. If there's no reasonable suspicion though, most of those rights fall away. I wouldn't be happy with the idea of random spot checks of peoples' houses to look for stolenIf there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state can (in my view entirely rightly) carry out intrusive investigations, e.g. obtaining bank statements to look for evidence of deception, raiding premises to look for stolen goods, demanding to
It isn't.
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We
would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software andWhen did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all our traditional privacy against their will.
a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government?
If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
For the hard of thinking, the police have had the power to look at the private
documents of people who are *actual suspects* since forever. This new law was
not needed to enable that. The secret intelligence services have had the power to access *non-suspects* data in proportion as they have been able to analyse it in the last twenty or thirty years.
You may find it reassuring that they say they are only going to use it to catch paedophiles and benefit cheats - I don't believe it.If there are others they hope to catch, they must have done something
wrong, else there is nothing they can be "caught" for?
In other news, publishing obscure and dubious claims about what some zionistMore conspiracy theories and theorists.
organisations did in the '30s is now apparently a crime, rather than just tasteless. They'll be after the climate deniers next - and that's half the gammons on these uk.* newsgroups!
As you can probably guess, I don't go in for any of it.
I didn't think you would, but apparently, I was wrong.
Well, everyone is wrong some time.
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:08:54 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
The retirement pension is a benefit. It is not means tested, but until very recently it could be taken away if the state was paying for your living expenses for instance in hospital for more than 6 weeks. I don't know if it is
still taken away from prisoners, but it would not surprise me. So it is not an absolute entitlement and investigation to see if you are not entitled is just as justifiable as for any other state benefit.
On 03/12/2023 17:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:44:30 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
Seeing that existing ISPs have to save all their customer's data and provide >> it to the government I am not sure quite what difference you think that would
make.
I suspect that TPTB only go after specific IP addresses or people,
rather than do general fishing expeditions by analysing all data sent
via ISPs.
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security claimants?
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
<snip>
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Because they're one and the same.
They both claim social security benefits from the state.
It just happens that one isn't means tested, almost like the social
security benefit of Child benefit (subject in recent years to a
claimant's household not having a member paying the higher rate tax).
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
Seeing that existing ISPs have to save all their customer's data and provide >it to the government
I am not sure quite what difference you think that would make.
If DWP wish to check hospital in-patient lists, let them.
If they want to be notified of every death over the age of [whatever
pension age currently is], let it happen.
It's my understanding that HMRC already has (at least some) access to bank >accounts.
When I looked into this, in the context of interest from savings, I gathered >that tax would be deducted automatically as HMRC has access to this >information.
For benefit recipients, the savings threshold is a key piece of
information related to entitlement.
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
<snip>
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Because they're one and the same.
They both claim social security benefits from the state.
It just happens that one isn't means tested, almost like the social
security benefit of Child benefit (subject in recent years to a
claimant's household not having a member paying the higher rate tax).
On 4 Dec 2023 at 12:32:09 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 17:44:30 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>> grounds
that it is really all done just to protect children. We would be
stupid to
believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
Seeing that existing ISPs have to save all their customer's data and provide
it to the government I am not sure quite what difference you think that would
make.
I suspect that TPTB only go after specific IP addresses or people,
rather than do general fishing expeditions by analysing all data sent
via ISPs.
So all this AI development to trawl near-infinite amounts of data for connections or oddities is all a waste of money then? No-one wants to use it?
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 03/12/2023 06:27 pm, Iain wrote:
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:
On 03/12/2023 01:45 pm, Iain wrote:
I_m not sure where you are going with this. Benefit fraud is not
the issue here _ there already exists the means to inspect
accounts where fraud is suspected.
The issue is that the government is attempting to gain access
anyone_s account, anytime, without reason.
What motive do you ascribe to what you claim?
Other than investigating possible benefit and income tax / NI fraud, I mean?
Then we need to make sure that this is included in the legislation.
Oh, hang on. They can already do that!
So what's the problem?
Do you really think that civil servants will spend all day looking up random bank accounts for the hell of it?
If you think that, why do you think it?
Then why do we need this extra legislation that gives a seemingly
carte blanche right of access to anyone's bank account if civil
servants will not be looking them up?
You seem to be trying to argue for something that you are saying
will not be needed anyway!
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:35:22 UTC, JNugent wrote:we are highly unlikely to persuade each other.
On 03/12/2023 06:35 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 10:30:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:The closer to 100%, the better, I suggest.
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org>
Wrote in message:
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
deception?
Please be explicit.
Of course there's no right to obtain benefits by deception, any more than there is to break any other law, e.g. handling stolen goods or tax evasion. This is not about the crimes themselves, this is about the limits on the state in enforcing the law.
What should be closer to 100%? The enforcement of the law, or the powers of the state? If the former, then it's not a very realistic target. If the latter, I would have to disagree and indeed I suspect that there's not much point discussing further, as
see the books for businesses to determine whether there's been tax evasion, etc. If there's no reasonable suspicion though, most of those rights fall away. I wouldn't be happy with the idea of random spot checks of peoples' houses to look for stolenIf there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state can (in my view entirely rightly) carry out intrusive investigations, e.g. obtaining bank statements to look for evidence of deception, raiding premises to look for stolen goods, demanding to
It isn't.
I'm entirely unclear as to your position. You seem to be saying that when it comes to investigating crime, the position should be the same for benefit fraud as it is for (say) handling stolen goods.
Is it your position that that common position should be that the state can do random spot checks whenever it likes?
If so, as I say above, there's not much point continuing this discussion. Or is your position that no intrusive investigation should be permitted in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed?
If so, that's at odds with what you've said elsewhere in this thread in relation to benefit fraud.
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We
would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the
Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to
implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the
Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more
all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of >>> clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all >>> our traditional privacy against their will.
a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government?
If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss account,seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
For the hard of thinking, the police have had the power to look at the private
documents of people who are *actual suspects* since forever. This new law was
not needed to enable that. The secret intelligence services have had the >>> power to access *non-suspects* data in proportion as they have been able to >>> analyse it in the last twenty or thirty years.
You may find it reassuring that they say they are only going to use it to >>> catch paedophiles and benefit cheats - I don't believe it.
If there are others they hope to catch, they must have done something
wrong, else there is nothing they can be "caught" for?
In other news, publishing obscure and dubious claims about what some zionist
organisations did in the '30s is now apparently a crime, rather than just >>> tasteless. They'll be after the climate deniers next - and that's half the >>> gammons on these uk.* newsgroups!
More conspiracy theories and theorists.
As you can probably guess, I don't go in for any of it.
I didn't think you would, but apparently, I was wrong.
Well, everyone is wrong some time.
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more
all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government?
If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of
the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss account,
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
On 04/12/2023 11:15 am, Brian W wrote:law.
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:35:22 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:35 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 10:30:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> >>>> Wrote in message:
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime,
our rights go right out of the window!
deception?
Please be explicit.
Of course there's no right to obtain benefits by deception, any more than there is to break any other law, e.g. handling stolen goods or tax evasion. This is not about the crimes themselves, this is about the limits on the state in enforcing the
as we are highly unlikely to persuade each other.The closer to 100%, the better, I suggest.
What should be closer to 100%? The enforcement of the law, or the powers of the state? If the former, then it's not a very realistic target. If the latter, I would have to disagree and indeed I suspect that there's not much point discussing further,
see the books for businesses to determine whether there's been tax evasion, etc. If there's no reasonable suspicion though, most of those rights fall away. I wouldn't be happy with the idea of random spot checks of peoples' houses to look for stolenIf there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state can (in my view entirely rightly) carry out intrusive investigations, e.g. obtaining bank statements to look for evidence of deception, raiding premises to look for stolen goods, demanding to
It isn't.
I'm entirely unclear as to your position. You seem to be saying that when it comes to investigating crime, the position should be the same for benefit fraud as it is for (say) handling stolen goods.Is there something wrong with that?
It applies to Income Tax and NI under-declaration as well.
Is it your position that that common position should be that the state can do random spot checks whenever it likes?The state will never "like". Civil servants, whether in DWP, local authorities or HMRC, will never be instructed to just comb through bank accounts on a directionless whim. There are never enough resources
available for that.
If so, as I say above, there's not much point continuing this discussion. Or is your position that no intrusive investigation should be permitted in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed?Hmmm... define "intrusive".
If so, that's at odds with what you've said elsewhere in this thread in relation to benefit fraud.Is it?
How?
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more
all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government?
If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to >> keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to
evade tax.
Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of
the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in
enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like,
carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for
evidence of a Swiss account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of
accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable
suspicion in the first place?
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:
On 4 Dec 2023 at 15:13:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to
keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to >>> evade tax.
Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of
the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in >>> enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like,
carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for
evidence of a Swiss account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of
accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable
suspicion in the first place?
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of
suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
Because this whole thread is because the power to do that is precisely what >the government is giving itself. Ok, it is spun as "just" to affect benefit >recipients but the power will be, or will rapidly become, universal. Most >likely the power in the Act will be general and the government will alter the >scope ad lib by secondary legislation.
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:20:41 UTC, JNugent wrote:law.
On 04/12/2023 11:15 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:35:22 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:35 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2023 at 10:30:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 02/12/2023 08:46 pm, Iain wrote:> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> >>>>>> Wrote in message:
What "right" does anyone have to obtain social security benefits by >>>>>> deception?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!
(You forgot to put the cynical smiley after it!) :)
Yes, I've heard that defence many times before. In the meantime, >>>>>>> our rights go right out of the window!
Please be explicit.
Of course there's no right to obtain benefits by deception, any more than there is to break any other law, e.g. handling stolen goods or tax evasion. This is not about the crimes themselves, this is about the limits on the state in enforcing the
as we are highly unlikely to persuade each other.The closer to 100%, the better, I suggest.
What should be closer to 100%? The enforcement of the law, or the powers of the state? If the former, then it's not a very realistic target. If the latter, I would have to disagree and indeed I suspect that there's not much point discussing further,
see the books for businesses to determine whether there's been tax evasion, etc. If there's no reasonable suspicion though, most of those rights fall away. I wouldn't be happy with the idea of random spot checks of peoples' houses to look for stolen
If there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state can (in my view entirely rightly) carry out intrusive investigations, e.g. obtaining bank statements to look for evidence of deception, raiding premises to look for stolen goods, demanding to
It isn't.
I'm entirely unclear as to your position. You seem to be saying that when it comes to investigating crime, the position should be the same for benefit fraud as it is for (say) handling stolen goods.
Is there something wrong with that?
No, depending upon the common position.
It applies to Income Tax and NI under-declaration as well.
Is it your position that that common position should be that the state can do random spot checks whenever it likes?
The state will never "like". Civil servants, whether in DWP, local
authorities or HMRC, will never be instructed to just comb through bank
accounts on a directionless whim. There are never enough resources
available for that.
It's nice to hear that governments never ever abuse their powers.
If so, as I say above, there's not much point continuing this discussion. Or is your position that no intrusive investigation should be permitted in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed?
Hmmm... define "intrusive".
Doing anything that would presently require a court order.
If so, that's at odds with what you've said elsewhere in this thread in relation to benefit fraud.
Is it?
How?
Because you seem to support the proposal that govt agencies can access benefit recipients bank account details without any reasonable suspicion.
I'm asking whether you support that same approach for other crimes, e.g. being able to come inside your house to look for stolen property without having a reasonable suspicion.
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:25:02 UTC, JNugent wrote:seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of
the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss account,
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of
suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
I must admit that I'm surprised - I thought that mistrust of government powers was as much a feature of conservative thought as it is of liberal left thought.
Do you really believe that no UK government would ever misuse a power to look at any person's accounts it likes?
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, wouldn't think this is a great wheeze totarget its political opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other countries do, why do you
On 4 Dec 2023 at 15:13:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on >>>>>>> us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even >>>>>> non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except >>>>>> for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep
their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to
keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to >>> evade tax.
Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of
the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in >>> enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like,
carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for
evidence of a Swiss account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of
accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable
suspicion in the first place?
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of
suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
Because this whole thread is because the power to do that is precisely what the government is giving itself. Ok, it is spun as "just" to affect benefit recipients but the power will be, or will rapidly become, universal. Most likely the power in the Act will be general and the government will alter the scope ad lib by secondary legislation.
snip
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:25:02 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep >>>> their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of >> the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of >> suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
I must admit that I'm surprised - I thought that mistrust of government powers was as much a feature of conservative thought as it is of liberal left thought.So do you say that (as part and parcel of your argument) that I should suspect civil servants of misusing their powers?
Do you really believe that no UK government would ever misuse a power to look at any person's accounts it likes?Tell me why a government department would do that.
If you were an investigating civil servant, would you do it?
If not, why do you suspect others of it?
target its political opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other countries do, why do youI'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to
do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
On 04/12/2023 05:58 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 4 Dec 2023 at 15:13:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact
large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the
difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep >>>> their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to
keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to >>> evade tax.
Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to
simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of >> the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in >>> enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like,
carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for >>> evidence of a Swiss account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of
accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable
suspicion in the first place?
Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of >> suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
Because this whole thread is because the power to do that is precisely what the government is giving itself. Ok, it is spun as "just" to affect benefit recipients but the power will be, or will rapidly become, universal. Most likely the power in the Act will be general and the government will alter the
scope ad lib by secondary legislation.
snipYou have a very rosy view of a leisured work life of police officers and other public servants.
On Monday 4 December 2023 at 20:42:37 UTC, JNugent wrote:account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:25:02 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to >>>> simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of >>>> the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with >>>>>> a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be >>>>>> involved??
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious >>>>>>>>>>> grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have >>>>>>>>>> little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact >>>>>> large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of
possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the >>>>>> difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep >>>>>> their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss
target its political opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other countries do, why do youSo do you say that (as part and parcel of your argument) that I shouldWhy do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of >>>> suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
I must admit that I'm surprised - I thought that mistrust of government powers was as much a feature of conservative thought as it is of liberal left thought.
suspect civil servants of misusing their powers?
No. Politicians on the other hand do "occasionally" misuse their powers.
Do you really believe that no UK government would ever misuse a power to look at any person's accounts it likes?Tell me why a government department would do that.
If you were an investigating civil servant, would you do it?
No. However, a corrupt politican might order civil servants to do it.
If not, why do you suspect others of it?
Because I think politicans can sometimes act corruptly.
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to
do it.
And would it worry you if a left wing government passed such a Bill?
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
On orders from politicans.
On 04/12/2023 09:48 pm, Brian W wrote:account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On Monday 4 December 2023 at 20:42:37 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:25:02 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to >>>> simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of >>>> the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be >>>>>> involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact >>>>>> large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of >>>>>> possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the >>>>>> difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep >>>>>> their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss
target its political opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other countries do, why do youSo do you say that (as part and parcel of your argument) that I shouldWhy do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of >>>> suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
I must admit that I'm surprised - I thought that mistrust of government powers was as much a feature of conservative thought as it is of liberal left thought.
suspect civil servants of misusing their powers?
No. Politicians on the other hand do "occasionally" misuse their powers.
Do you really believe that no UK government would ever misuse a power to look at any person's accounts it likes?Tell me why a government department would do that.
If you were an investigating civil servant, would you do it?
No. However, a corrupt politican might order civil servants to do it.
If not, why do you suspect others of it?
Because I think politicans can sometimes act corruptly.
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to >> do it.
And would it worry you if a left wing government passed such a Bill?I'd be worried if such a government came into office in the first place.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
On orders from politicans.Do you know how government departments work?
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which
if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years
in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to
do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which
if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years
in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to
do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on
(which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for
years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves
to do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
On 05-Dec-23 14:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:Why bother?
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on
(which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for
years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves
to do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
It would be cheaper to dump the task of monitoring _every_ account of
people receiving benefits (inc. pensions) on to the banks.
They are required to report any suspicious transactions, so this can be simply added to the bank's workload, and let them decide how to do it.
On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on
(which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for
years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves
to do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
On Tuesday 5 December 2023 at 09:22:04 UTC, JNugent wrote:account, seize electronic devices to look for evidence of accessing a Swiss account? Or should such investigations require a reasonable suspicion in the first place?
On 04/12/2023 09:48 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Monday 4 December 2023 at 20:42:37 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 16:25:02 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2023 11:19 am, Brian W wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 06:39:59 UTC, JNugent wrote:Even if the account is being used to evade tax, it isn't an offence to >>>>>> simply have the account. The offence would lie elsewhere, under parts of >>>>>> the relevant legislation which apply to everyone.
On 03/12/2023 10:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2023 at 18:41:55 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/12/2023 05:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:When did you ever have a general right in law to keep your dealings with
On 03/12/2023 14:15, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 01:02 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Just as projects to save and make available what we
all do online and our communications are justified on the spurious
grounds that it is really all done just to protect children. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be stupid to believe that.
I don't even see what you are talking about there. It seems to have
little to do with bank accounts.
Roger Hayter was generalising governments' constant desires to snoop on
us. Perhaps he should have started another thread to detail how the >>>>>>>>>>> Government would do this. Fortunately there aren't any proposals to >>>>>>>>>>> implement Jeremy Corbyn's suggestion of free internet access (=the >>>>>>>>>>> Government as ISP).
OK.
But *do* governments have a general desire to snoop on citizens (or even
non-citizens)?
It's easy to allege. A bit harder, as you imply, to prove. Well, except
for conspiracy theorists, one supposes.
The fact they keep passing laws to enable them to do so in ever more >>>>>>>>> all-encompassing ways, at about the same rate as they develop the software and
storage to allow them to analyse exponentially bigger datasets is a sort of
clue to their wishes and intentions. They aren't being forced to cancel all
our traditional privacy against their will.
a bank private, especially where breaches of various laws might be >>>>>>>> involved??
Do you and did you support the rights of bank customers to transact >>>>>>>> large sums in cash without it being reported for consideration of >>>>>>>> possible drug-dealing or money-laundering? If you don't, what's the >>>>>>>> difference?
Do you, and did you always, support the right of UK citizens to keep >>>>>>>> their Swiss bank account transactions a secret from the UK government? >>>>>>>> If you don't and didn't, what's the difference?
Sauce for the goose...
Well, not really. Of course I don't believe that UK citizens have a right to keep, say, a secret Swiss Bank account, if that account is being used to evade tax.
The big issue though is what rights should the state authorities have in enforcing tax law. Should they have a right to swoop on any person they like, carry out a search of their home(s) and business properties to look for evidence of a Swiss
target its political opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other countries do, why do youSo do you say that (as part and parcel of your argument) that I should >>>> suspect civil servants of misusing their powers?Why do you think that such things will be undertaken in the *absence* of >>>>>> suspicion ("reasonable" always being a value-judgment)?
I must admit that I'm surprised - I thought that mistrust of government powers was as much a feature of conservative thought as it is of liberal left thought.
No. Politicians on the other hand do "occasionally" misuse their powers. >>>
Do you really believe that no UK government would ever misuse a power to look at any person's accounts it likes?Tell me why a government department would do that.
If you were an investigating civil servant, would you do it?
No. However, a corrupt politican might order civil servants to do it.
If not, why do you suspect others of it?
Because I think politicans can sometimes act corruptly.
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to
government wanted to do it. I for one shall sleep easier at night in that knowledge.I'd be worried if such a government came into office in the first place.They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves to >>>> do it.
And would it worry you if a left wing government passed such a Bill?
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
On orders from politicans.
Do you know how government departments work?
May I thank you for putting my mind at rest. I am, from time to time, concerned that governments may abuse their powers. However, you've convincingly proven that not only does that never happen, it could not in fact happen even if the odd bad apple in
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget they >>>> are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security claimants?
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
they are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
longer a benefits claimant.
PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 15:06:45 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget >>>>>> they are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
(contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
longer a benefits claimant.
PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
The other driver here, will be the Daily Mail fantasy that all benefits claimants have 100" plasma TVs, a mobile phone for each room of their
mansion which isn't big enough for the pool they'd like.
Because I know this legislation will be used to "check peoples spending".
All in the name of "helping them" of course.
On 5 Dec 2023 at 17:59:56 GMT, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 05-Dec-23 14:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:Why bother?
On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But >>>>> are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say, >>>>> wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on
(which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for >>>>> years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other >>>>> countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a >>>>> chance?
They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves
to do it.
But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
It would be cheaper to dump the task of monitoring _every_ account of
people receiving benefits (inc. pensions) on to the banks.
They are required to report any suspicious transactions, so this can be
simply added to the bank's workload, and let them decide how to do it.
What they couldn't do is correlate transactions between different people's bank accounts, a source of a great deal of information. And transactions generally don't have to be "suspicious" to generate useful information.
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
longer a benefits claimant.
PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
On 05/12/2023 03:06 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget >>>>>> they
are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might
want to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
claimants?
Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
(contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also
paid by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am
no longer a benefits claimant.
PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
You have made the distinction clear: means-tested versus non-means-tested.
A pension paid by the Treasury (whether as the quid pro quo for a
lifetime's "contributions" or a lifetime working in the public sector)
is not the same thing as the principal poverty-relief schemes
(historically National Assistance / Supplementary Benefit / Income
Support / Universal Credit).
Is PIP "contributory", BTW?
I only have a hazy idea of what it is (yes, I know the approximate area
in which it sits, but not the details). Is it a passported scheme
(reached only via entitlement to ESA or legacy schemes like SB / IVB)?
On 06/12/2023 10:24, JNugent wrote:
On 05/12/2023 03:06 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners
forget they are also benefit claimants.
Not all.
Not even most.
If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
claimants.
It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
benefit as a benefit claimant either!
What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might
want to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
"...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social
security claimants?
Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you
would have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming
ESA (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP.
When I reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and
got my state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and
also paid by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that
I am no longer a benefits claimant.
PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
You have made the distinction clear: means-tested versus
non-means-tested.
I don't accept that that makes any difference to whether someone should
be considered a benefits claimant though. I can't see how you could say that someone on Income related ESA, is a benefits claimant, while
someone on Contributions based ESA isn't. If I had been suspected of fraudulent behaviour, with respect to my ESA claim, that would have been investigated and, potentially prosecuted, in exactly the same way, under
the same laws and by the same parts of the organisation, as if I had
been on a means-tested benefit.
A pension paid by the Treasury (whether as the quid pro quo for a
lifetime's "contributions" or a lifetime working in the public sector)
is not the same thing as the principal poverty-relief schemes
(historically National Assistance / Supplementary Benefit / Income
Support / Universal Credit).
Is PIP "contributory", BTW?
I only have a hazy idea of what it is (yes, I know the approximate
area in which it sits, but not the details). Is it a passported scheme
(reached only via entitlement to ESA or legacy schemes like SB / IVB)?
No, you can claim PIP even if you've never been able to work. You can
also claim it while working. PIP isn't passported but it provides a
passport to some other benefits, such as Carer's Allowance. That said, there is talk about combining the application process for PIP and ESA, although I don't know how that will work, considering that the criteria
are very different.
PIP's intended to contribute to the additional costs of living with a disability. There are two parts, one for Daily Living and the other for Mobility, and two levels of payment, standard and enhanced, for each.
It's another one which is definitely a benefit and people who receive it
are, undoubtedly, benefits claimants, even though it isn't means-tested.
On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:32:54 GMT, Iain wrote:
On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
(New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
necessary.
I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
It's my understanding that HMRC already has (at least some) access to bank accounts.
When I looked into this, in the context of interest from savings, I gathered that tax would be deducted automatically as HMRC has access to this information.
For benefit recipients, the savings threshold is a key piece of
information related to entitlement. It'd be trivial to match those above the threshold to benefit payments, I'd have thought.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:19:27 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,326 |