Benefit staff to use lie detector

[sam]

Just wondered what everyone else thought of this latest way to root out benefit cheats, I think it would be a great thing if it worked, but can it really give a true reading?:confused

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm)

[karia]

Does it work both ways so that they have to tell claimants if they are due other benefits?:eek:

[Buttercup]

Just wondered what everyone else thought of this latest way to root out benefit cheats, I think it would be a great thing if it worked, but can it really give a true reading?:confused

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm

Think it's a great idea. Anything that weeds out the cheats is OK by me.

[JAWS]

Just another gimmick. They are anything but accurate and only rely on how the operator "interprets" the readout.
The first thing that will happen is that the findings will be challenged and courts in Britain do not accept them as evidence because of their unreliability. In other words, made a good start but fell at the first fence!

But it makes a good sound-bite to keep people happy. It almost ranks with "frog-marching drunken yobs to the cash machine" for credibility.

[scorrie]

Hi, this is an update on the process:-

http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39168333,00.htm

Not sure where you stop when you introduce these measures though.

[Whitewater]

Guess I may have to stop claiming for my 11 wives and 113 children then. Just thinking I would be rich if it were true, but I guess I would be well worn out.

[justine]

Which is strange as a lie detector test result is inamissable in court, so how can they have the power to say ok your lying and then prove it.....What happened to the days when they went out and knocked on the door to find out the truth..
Some people may be of a nervous disposition, and having a lie detector test may prove them to be lying when infact they are not.....

i noticed in the link that it states 304 people had there claims reviewed but only 47 were found to be false....I know it saves the council money but is it fair to assume all are fraudsters...

Are the people aware that they are having there claims tested by a voice detector or is that done behind their backs....

[ciderally]

i dont like the sound of this ...as justine says whats wrong with knocking on doors .... what next .....police state

[golach]

Just wondered what everyone else thought of this latest way to root out benefit cheats, I think it would be a great thing if it worked, but can it really give a true reading?:confused

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm
This info is a little out of date is it not, the article is dated April 2007

[honey]

i was nervous enough having to go for an interview for a passport the other day.. dont think id like the added pressure of a lie detector.. saying that, if thats how nervous i was whith nothing to hide, what would it be like for fraudsters??

[TBH]

That's one of the funniest stories I have seen in a long while. Maybe we should give lie detector tests to those that stand for parliament. There are plenty of those cheating swine skimming off tax payers money. Michael Martin could be one of the biggest leaches of them all but it doesn't matter because he's posh.:lol:

[Penelope Pitstop]

I've no doubt that this would probably be some sort of infringement on someone or others human rights....probably listed somewhere about the start of the list at No 1,999,999 !!!

Mind you the list of Benefits available these days is probably far longer:confused

Wonder how folk would have coped if they lived 60 years ago...no soft benefit system then. You worked hard for your money or you didn't have any to feed and clothe your family.

My Mum's dad was killed in the war when she was 5 - her mother brought her, her sisters and nephew up on nowt. Ask my Mum or anyone else brought up in those times what hardship was.

Don't get me wrong no way would I want anyone to go back to that, but these days things are just far too easy for folk who just don't want to work.

[mums angels]

i don't think enough is done to route out benifit frauders and was disgusted to hear recently from a friend that she knew off someone that had got a phonecall about her benifits and after a discussion about how much she got now and how much she'd get working the woman from benifits apparently told her that she would only be better off by 20 quid so shes better just to stay on benifits .. some people are just too lazy to work and others are just plain greedy , claiming on top of other income thats not disclosed weather or not it be someone living there that shouldn't be or doing work on the side and not disclosing it .

i have no problem of people claiming benifits i did it myself along time ago but i can honestly say there were no luxuries on the amount i recieved !!! I don't work as i'm a stay at home mum but hubby supports us fully with no extra income ( excluding child allowance ) but must admit if he couldn't i would claim what i could until the children was of school age and would cut back on certain luxuries as i wouldn't want to work and put them to childminders etc .I know of several benifit frauders and even though i do not agree with what they do i wouldn't report them as i don't want to be responsilble for the outcome afterwards but if a lie detector caught them out then so be it - would serve some of them right .

[ciderally]

That's one of the funniest stories I have seen in a long while. Maybe we should give lie detector tests to those that stand for parliament. There are plenty of those cheating swine skimming off tax payers money. Michael Martin could be one of the biggest leaches of them all but it doesn't matter because he's posh.:lol:

yea and for the expences....

[j4bberw0ck]

Wouldn't it be better to let people keep more of what they earn and so receive fewer benefits, or less benefit, and so reduce the incentive to cheat?

[golach]

Wouldn't it be better to let people keep more of what they earn and so receive fewer benefits, or less benefit, and so reduce the incentive to cheat?
But J4bber, its the ones that will not work nor want, (and there are many out there that we all know), that the Benefits Agencey is trying to catch out, and so therefore saving you and me the hard done by taxpayer.
I say shop the fraudsters, and we will eventually pay less taxes.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/

[rob murray]

Yes of course, the harder benefit cheats are hit the better of we all are eh, think of the savings to the public purse that end up in our reduced tax bills...dream on.
Britain’s role in the world is to be butler to the global super-rich.
For ten years Gordon Brown has had two tax strategies. One has
been for UK resident people. Most of us are familiar with that policy because we pay the resulting taxes. The second makes the UK a tax haven that attracts the super rich to our shores.
The UK’s domicile rules are key to the UK’s status as a tax haven. Put simply, yourdomicile is your place of national origin. That’s not your nationality, or race, and it has nothing to do with where you live or your ethnicity. Your domicile is your natural home: the place to which you owe allegiance. And if you or your paternal family have long term ties with a place outside the UK it’s highly likely that you can argue that you are domiciled outside this country.And if you’re rich this is incredibly useful because if you’re not domiciled in the UK you can live here, almost without time limit, and only pay tax on your UK income and capital gains. The rest of your world wide income and gains are tax free so long as you don’t bring them here. And because non-domiciled people can use tax havens legitimately, unlike the rest of us, it’s a doddle for them to disguise all their income from the UK as arising in the rest of the world, even when they send it back to this country.

So there ya have it !!! Reduce benefits, reduce public services, as we aint getting anything from the rich so the deficit has to be made up somehow !!!

[Penelope Pitstop]

Wouldn't it be better to let people keep more of what they earn and so receive fewer benefits, or less benefit, and so reduce the incentive to cheat?

Yeah get your drift.....actually making it worth your while to work.

[scorrie]

This info is a little out of date is it not, the article is dated April 2007

That is why I posted an update.

[j4bberw0ck]

So there ya have it !!! Reduce benefits, reduce public services, as we aint getting anything from the rich so the deficit has to be made up somehow !!!

OMG, it's the Polly Toynbee School of Economics.

Rob, you seem to have missed the fact that even our nincompoop of a Chancellor has had to accept.

If he taxes non-doms, as as a result they move outside the UK and so pay NO tax on their UK income, he'll lose (net) £2 billion a year in tax take. Do try to keep up.

Soaking the rich is all very well. Until the rich decide they've had enough, and move.

[TBH]

OMG, it's the Polly Toynbee School of Economics.

Rob, you seem to have missed the fact that even our nincompoop of a Chancellor has had to accept.

If he taxes non-doms, as as a result they move outside the UK and so pay NO tax on their UK income, he'll lose (net) £2 billion a year in tax take. Do try to keep up.

Soaking the rich is all very well. Until the rich decide they've had enough, and move.Do they tax con-doms?

[George Brims]

This is an utter disgrace. Why don't they cast runes, or examine chicken entrails? Perhaps trial by combat, that would cut down the number of claimants. Lie detectors do not work. They are pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. What a waste of the taxpayers' money, which would be better spent in training their staff to conduct a proper interview.

[hotrod4]

Bring back the old "daz doorstep challenge" :)
Send officers round to peoples houses and various workplaces to see if claimants are genuine,employers being legal etc. After all if a claimant is doing nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide?
It neednt descend into a police state as if you want to take money from the state why shouldnt the state check to see if you are genuine.
I know there are genuine claimants and people with problems and they deserve benefits but there are also people who claim but are still able to drive around in nice cars and have all the latest gear which I certainly couldnt afford when i was unemployed! They obviously arent that needy and are fleecing the system.

I genuinely do feel for people who are struggling as I have been there myself and its not a nice place, its the "wasters" who fiddle the system that need weeded out.

[Shabbychic]

I think it's a disgrace what the government are putting people through. It's claimed out of 304 people 47 were weeded out, but what about the extra stress put on the 257 genuine folks. 47 out of 304 is not much of a statistic.

I believe this lie detector was used by American insurance companies and was stopped because it didn't work.

The problem really is that the government are not trying to weed out fraudsters, they are trying to force genuine people back to work whether they are capable or not.

Here is a Link (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2043016.0.fun_courses_aim_to_give_jobl ess_last_laugh.php) to another one of their crazy schemes.

[Penelope Pitstop]

The problem really is that the government are not trying to weed out fraudsters, they are trying to force genuine people back to work whether they are capable or not.

If that was their plan, I don't see anything wrong with trying to force the capable ones back to work.....sooner the better I think.:confused 'cause some of them have no intention to work.

[j4bberw0ck]

Lie detectors do not work

These are even better than polygraphs. These are "voice stress analysers" designed to be used over that most hi-fidelity of communications mediums, the telephone.

And I suspect that what happens is that if the wee box squawks, the public servant at the Jobcentre makes a note and in three of four years, someone will think about investigating the caller.


Do they tax con-doms?

Yes. Value Added Tax. The idea is, presumably, you add value to the condom. Hopefully this may be true :lol: .

[TBH]

Yes. Value Added Tax. The idea is, presumably, you add value to the condom. Hopefully this may be true :lol: .Does that take Inflation into account?:lol:

[j4bberw0ck]

Excellent, TBH. Rep points on their way!:lol::lol:

[Shabbychic]

If that was their plan, I don't see anything wrong with trying to force the capable ones back to work.....sooner the better I think.:confused 'cause some of them have no intention to work.

I don't have a problem with them forcing the capable ones back to work, but they are also going after genuine people, who really are ill, and trying to force them to take a job whether they are up to it or not. They are even bringing in measures whereby Jobcentre staff will decide who is genuinely ill and who is not.

The problem is, they are putting out wild statistics to turn people against those who cannot work due to illness. But what happens when those who are out there screaming 'scroungers', one day find they cannot work due to illness? How will they feel when folks turn on them?

[Neil Howie]

two points:

The voice analyser itself (or the readings from it) cannot be used in court. However, those claims that it identifies as "high-risk" are put thru more thorough questioning.

As this technology is not proven, it is just an unreliable way of vetting claimants.

[Penelope Pitstop]

I don't have a problem with them forcing the capable ones back to work, but they are also going after genuine people, who really are ill, and trying to force them to take a job whether they are up to it or not. They are even bringing in measures whereby Jobcentre staff will decide who is genuinely ill and who is not.

The problem is, they are putting out wild statistics to turn people against those who cannot work due to illness. But what happens when those who are out there screaming 'scroungers', one day find they cannot work due to illness? How will they feel when folks turn on them?

You will note that I said capable ones....made no mention of unfit people. Just want to clarify that.

I would have thought that unfit people would have some kind of confirmation from their Dr that they were unfit for work......anyone know if that is the case???? I would not have thought that benefits staff would be allowed to decide if someone was fit or not....they are not doctors....do they have powers to make someone have a medical assessment???? I don't know.

The point I was making is that there are people out their who do not want to work and have no intention of trying....very different from those that cannot work...not to be mistaken.

I have had people refuse work as they are better off on benefits than they would be in work...now that is just not right and should not be allowed to continue.

[j4bberw0ck]

As this technology is not proven, it is just an unreliable way of vetting claimants.

Neil, it doesn't have to be proven as a technology. It just has to sound good. Then the Government can use it. Like "ID Card", or "DNA database".

Accuracy of response is a different thing altogether.