Snoopers charter - Pensioners will have their bank accounts inspected and monitored

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where's your source for that? What about the percentage spent on the legal aid budget, the NHS budget, the housing budget, the education budget, the translator budget and all the other budgets that refugees dip into?
We're discussing the people receiving benefits having their bank accounts monitored.
Refugees can't open a bank account. Translators may not be on benefits, etc.
 
Sponsored Links
No I used the figures that have been reported. The scope is 9M - many sources agree.
Show your sources, not some vague reference to some vague source.
So far you've presented three categories of claimants with no source provided for your data.
 
We're discussing the people receiving benefits having their bank accounts monitored.
Refugees can't open a bank account. Translators may not be on benefits, etc.
Tell that to Ellal who brought it up in post #131
 

The 15 banks selected provide accounts for 97 per cent of the nearly 9 million people who claim benefits. They include Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Halifax, HSBC, NatWest, Santander and TSB. The DWP maintains its new powers do not amount to surveillance and will not give investigators direct access to bank accounts.
 
Sponsored Links
Where's your source for that?
There's an amazing tool known as google...

You should try it ;)

What about the percentage spent on the legal aid budget, the NHS budget, the housing budget, the education budget, the translator budget and all the other budgets that refugees dip into?
Probably about the same...

But until you get the hang of google, maybe you would like to know the percentage of the covid furlough fund that was fraudulently claimed/wrongly paid out?

It's 9%...

And guess what...

Who do you think is paying large amounts in legal fees to try and recoup that money!
 

The 15 banks selected provide accounts for 97 per cent of the nearly 9 million people who claim benefits. They include Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Halifax, HSBC, NatWest, Santander and TSB. The DWP maintains its new powers do not amount to surveillance and will not give investigators direct access to bank accounts.
The bit about "only means-tested benefits will be monitored at first" is the worrying bit.
Initially the DWP say that they will use their powers to oblige the UK’s top 15 banks to monitor the accounts of all means-tested benefits claimants and report every time an account goes over the capital limit or is used abroad for more than four weeks.
Their and your figures refer to that initial use of the powers.
Agreed that might be about 14% initially, rising to 41% whenever the government feel ready to extrapolate the extent of the system.

Yet again we see that it's the bill that is flawed, not the intention. The government bring in wide ranging powers to deal with a particular problem, which are put to wider use to which they were never intended.

No doubt the government will add some kind of retrospective clause. :rolleyes:

And how much will it cost to imprison 2,500 people? Assume average of a 5 year sentence
At £47,000¹ per prisoner per year, (total 2500 * 47000 *5 years= £600,000,000) where are the savings going: :rolleyes:
Savings projected = £500,000,000 per year Let's assume only half of that is achieved.
Savings £250,000,000
Cost of prisoners £600,000,000 over 5 years
Cost of investigation £30,000,000 per year.
Net benefit about - £400,000,000 and a heck of a lot more criminals
Not to mention the cost of building more prisons. :rolleyes:

It's bonkers in principle and it's bonkers economically.
Was this one of Liz Trusses ideas? :rolleyes:

¹Imprisoning elderly, disabled, people with children, single parents, etc will cost society an awful lot more than the average cost of a prisoner.
Not to mention the kids brought up without a parent, the working parent having to give up work etc.

Economically this has got to be another barmy Tory dog whistle idea that should never get off the ground.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to Ellal who brought it up in post #131
Ah, you forget your earlier post bringing up the subject of refugees...

But fear not, here is a reminder...

thicko mottie.JPG
 
Last edited:
The bit about "only means-tested benefits will be monitored at first" is the worrying bit.

Their and your figures refer to that initial use of the powers.
Agreed that might be about 14% initially, rising to 41% whenever the government feel ready to extrapolate the extent of the system.

Yet again we see that it's the bill that is flawed, not the intention. The government bring in wide ranging powers to deal with a particular problem, which are put to wider use to which they were never intended.

No doubt the government will add some kind of retrospective clause. :rolleyes:

And how much will it cost to imprison 2,500 people? Assume average of a 5 year sentence
At £47,000¹ per prisoner per year, (total 2500 * 47000 *5 years= £600,000,000) where are the savings going: :rolleyes:
Savings projected = £500,000,000 per year Let's assume only half of that is achieved.
Savings £250,000,000
Cost of prisoners £600,000,000 over 5 years
Cost of investigation £30,000,000
Net benefit about - £400,000,000 and a heck of a lot more criminals
Not to mention the cost of building more prisons. :rolleyes:

It's bonkers in principle and it's bonkers economically.
Was this one of Liz Trusses ideas? :rolleyes:

¹Imprisoning elderly, disabled, people with children, single parents, etc will cost society an awful lot more than the average cost of a prisoner.
Not to mention the kids brought up without a parent, the working parent having to give up work etc.

Economically this has got to be another barmy Tory dog whistle idea that should never get off the ground.
Have you read the bill?
 
Have you read the bill?
You mean your link did not explain correctly:

Why don't you explain why it's necessary to read the bill rather than the link you presented?
 
Where's your source for that? What about the percentage spent on the legal aid budget, the NHS budget, the housing budget, the education budget, the translator budget and all the other budgets that refugees dip into?

Yes, the small amount of pocket money given to migrants (some may even be genuine refugeees) will dwarf the amount of money it costs to house them in 4* hotels, feed and clothe them, educate them (some are even genuine children), fund their medical expenses, pay to incarcerate them in prison, social services, etc, etc. The list is endless. The generosity to migrants on the backs of hard-pressed taxpayers is obviously much greater than headline figures would suggest.
 
You mean your link did not explain correctly:


Why don't you explain why it's necessary to read the bill rather than the link you presented?
because you were going all :rolleyes: about the government doing this and that to expand it. making up ideas not in the proposed law.
 
Going back to the op, it's all part of a slippery slope brought on by the government's enthusiasm for cash usage to be greatly reduced and eventually phased out. Can see the way it's going, and as time goes on, the government's tentacles will reach into every aspect of our lives that used to be off limits. Once they have the power, it will be wielded more and more. EVERYONE will be affected.
 
I see you're still making basic maths errors. :rolleyes:

If there are 10 goups of items, you can't add three of them together to get the total of all items. :rolleyes:
I don't know enough about benefits, to know if you can be counted in more than one group. if so looks like its even less than 9M
 
Going back to the op, it's all part of a slippery slope brought on by the government's enthusiasm for cash usage to be greatly reduced and eventually phased out. Can see the way it's going, and as time goes on, the government's tentacles will reach into every aspect of our lives that used to be off limits. Once they have the power, it will be wielded more and more. EVERYONE will be affected.
Its this that some people can't, or won't see.

Just because you've nothing to hide doesn't mean you won't be investigated. And then have to prove your innocence !

Its that bit we should all be against, regardless of rosette colour, but some think this Government can do no wrong and give them free reign
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top