Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Received an infraction
Options
-
07-11-2014 1:06am#1I received an infraction in the following thread...
...boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92916672
The mod claimed that I advocate Social Welfare Fraud. This is a slander as at no point in my three posts in the thread did I advocate lying or not providing truthful information to any questions asked by the social welfare.
The main accusation was explained by the mod in a private message as...
__________My Original Post____________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batzoo View Post
I'm no legal eagle, but I imagine if the property is in your name, its yours. You say it was done for tax reasons (Not judging), just be careful that you don't get lumbered with some outrageous tax bill and get left to "fend for yourself".
I have been in and out of the social welfare office a few times over the years and it is never easy to get a straight answer from the people who work there. They don't seem to want to volunteer information, so you have to ask specific questions.
Ultimately, your fathers wealth is his business and none of yours or the social welfare's. You have no income and no savings as such. You will be entitled to a welfare payment of some sort. If you have the paperwork and the "stamps" you should be entitled to Jobseekers benefit, otherwise you will have to apply for Jobseekers allowance.
As you say you have a meeting in the morning for JSA. Be careful what you say and don't get caught in a lie. Don't volunteer any information, only answer the questions that are asked. The truth seems to be that you have no income, have no savings and are seeking work. Stick to this and there will be no reason to refuse you.
_______________________________________________________________________
__________And the mods response...______________________________________
Your original post where you advise the OP to only answer the questions that are asked, and the "truth" is no income, no savings and seeking work.
The OP has stated in the opening post he has property in his name.
Advising the OP not to volunteer information which may be relevant to his means is advocating SW fraud. And very much hinting/suggesting the OP does not mention the property in his name.
I am not going on any other poster's mention of fraud - I am able to read the post myself. I did not see that mention of fraud until I had given the infraction.
Reading down through the thread you state in post #8, ""And on the properties owned, I would only have provided information if specifically asked.
Ultimately, the property in the OP's name is his regardless of how he spins it and this is where his claim will stall. He should not have volunteered this information IMHO"
This is advocating SW fraud - no two ways around it in my opinion. It is terrible advise and may land someone in hot water if they were to follow it.
I will not be reversing my decision on the infraction.
If you have an issue with the infraction, you may raise this in DRP.
______________________________________________________________________
That is the end of the discussion as far as the mod is concerned so I have to raise it in the DRP. So here goes...
The first line from the mod states...
" and the "truth" is no income, no savings and seeking work."
Where I actually said...
"The truth seems to be that you have no income, have no savings and are seeking work."
I never put quotes around the word truth, this is the Mod projecting an adverse meaning where there is none. I also said "seems to be" This is just taking the OP at his word that he has no income and no savings and is looking for work.
I advised the OP not to volunteer information and only answer the questions asked. This is not the same as lying to the social welfare. This is clearly suggesting to only answer the questions that are asked. This in no way shape or form constitutes lying or even withholding information and is definitely not advocating fraud. The social welfare are experienced in these matters and now the right questions to ask the OP. My advice amounted to "Answer these questions".
The mod states that "Advising the OP not to volunteer information which may be relevant to his means is advocating SW fraud. " This is not what I advised and the mod needs to read this again. The OP mentioned his fathers wealth and property. This has nothing to do with the social welfare or the OP and will not be taken into consideration in any means test. He will not be asked about this on any form and does not need to raise this point unless asked.
The mod also states...
The OP has stated in the opening post he has property in his name.
Advising the OP not to volunteer information which may be relevant to his means is advocating SW fraud. And very much hinting/suggesting the OP does not mention the property in his name.
The is a moot point as the OP had already filled in the forms and declared his assets and was being assessed the following morning. But the confusion seems to stem from the fact that the Mod thinks I am advising or hinting at lying to the social welfare. I don't hint or say things with a nudge nudge wink wink. I try to say things as explicitly as I can. I will stress again that not volunteering information only means don't ramble on about subjects that are not asked, it will only delay an inevitable payment. Once again his fathers wealth is irrelevant and will not be asked about.
That first post in the thread is the only post I made that was directed at the original poster but the mod also mentions post #8 as follows...
"Reading down through the thread you state in post #8, ""And on the properties owned, I would only have provided information if specifically asked."
This sentence is in the past tense and refers to what I would have done. It was not advise to the original poster as his application process is beyond any advice he will receive in this thread. Again I will stress, This in no way is fraud, the social welfare know whats relevant and what to ask and my advice is to answer these questions. I will stress this again, answering only the questions that are asked is not fraud, it is not an attempt to commit fraud, it is not lying and I am flabbergasted that the mod does not understand this point and deems in necessary to issue an infraction without the option of discussion.
The mod goes on to quote me...
"Ultimately, the property in the OP's name is his regardless of how he spins it and this is where his claim will stall. He should not have volunteered this information IMHO"
and reply with...
This is advocating SW fraud - no two ways around it in my opinion. It is terrible advise and may land someone in hot water if they were to follow it.
Again it seems that the word volunteered is the cause of conflict. If I was the OP, I would have obtained the forms from the social welfare, and filled them in as accurately and as correctly as possible. If there were questions on the forms regarding properties owned I would have filled these in too with the correct information. I would not have put this information between the lines of a different question or on the back of a form. I would have only mentioned it when asked. If the form requests this information, then fill it in, I never hinted at anything other than this. This is a projection or a misunderstanding by the mod and in no way advocates SW fraud.
I hope I am making my point as clear as possible because I don't appreciate the slander that the Mod has made that I endorse SW fraud and the removal of this infraction and an apology from the Mod for the slander would not go amiss.0
Comments
-
Just to add to the above about volunteering information.
Say you had a car to sell. The interested buyer comes and looks it over, kicks the wheels, asks a few questions which you answer truthfully. They then make an offer to buy the car... do you say hang on, you never asked about the timing belt, there is over 90,000 on the clock and this will need to be done. The tyres are a bit worn on the inside, I suspect the tracking is off. There is a strange smell that comes through the vents when its raining and the electric windows only work some of the time...
No you would not. You would not volunteer this information because it was not asked. Are you defrauding the buyer of the car or are you lying. No you are not and you would not be accused of this. You answered everything that was asked and were truthful. You can do no more than answer the questions that are asked.0 -
Hi Batzoo, apologies for not seeing this DRP thread sooner. Myself and/or Davy will look into this in our position as CMods for Biz.0
-
I've reviewed the thread in question. In essence, I agree with the actions of the moderator in awarding you a red card. The forum charter (link) clearly states the following:7 - Do not advocate, hint at, mention, talk about or otherwise mention any method of defrauding the Welfare or Health Board.
While you may not have straight-out told the OP to defraud the Department of Social Welfare, your advice, if followed to the letter, could have resulted in serious ramifications for the OP.
Please take the time to read the forum charter before posting again, and hopefully we can draw a line under this one. If you disagree with my review, you are entitled to request an Admin review.0 -
I've reviewed the thread in question. In essence, I agree with the actions of the moderator in awarding you a red card. The forum charter (...boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055070569"]link[/URL]) clearly states the following:
While you may not have straight-out told the OP to defraud the Department of Social Welfare, your advice, if followed to the letter, could have resulted in serious ramifications for the OP.
Please take the time to read the forum charter before posting again, and hopefully we can draw a line under this one. If you disagree with my review, you are entitled to request an Admin review.
Is there any point in refering it to an administrator. I seem to be alone in my understanding of what I said. It is now three people who seem to think that not to volunteer information actually means lie and defraud.
The social welfare know what is relevant to any claim made and ask the relevant questions. Why does nobody seem to get this point. Any other information is irrelevant to them and they don’t want to know and don’t care about it.
You say... "While you may not have straight-out told the OP to defraud the Department of Social Welfare."
Well if you read the previous posts you will find that this is exactly what I was accused of. That should be an end to it there and the original infraction removed.
You go on to say "your advice, if followed to the letter, could have resulted in serious ramifications for the OP." No it would not. The OP had already rolled the dice as such and had a meeting regarding the property in his name and I believe had already disclosed this information. Even so, I can guarantee that there would be no serious ramifications with the social welfare or the law in this or similar instances from not volunteering information. I will reiterate, not volunteering is not lying and is not fraud.
I have read the charter and the rules several times and believe slander is against them. In the original thread a poster said that what I said was fraud. The post immediately after this, the mod infracted me with the false accusation that I endorse social welfare fraud and forbid me from addressing this accusation directly. This, and any confusion about the meaning of my posts could all have been cleared up in a couple of sentences. Because of a knee-jerk infraction based on what "volunteer" actually means, I cannot respond to this without a full ban and having the response removed.
It has been implied that I encourage lying and cheating and defrauding the social welfare by three people on boards now and this I believe is a mischaracterisation of me and what I said in a public forum and the option of addressing it has been removed from me by a mod infraction. None of this is in line with what the boards charter is supposed to stand for.
7 - Do not advocate, hint at, mention, talk about or otherwise mention any method of defrauding the Welfare or Health Board.
Finally regarding rule 7. above that you think I broke.
I will say it again, not volunteering information does not mean lie and defraud. Any defrauding and lying reflects on the readers frame of reference and experience, not what I actually said. It does not hint at defrauding and is not a method of defrauding. It is simply a truth which I believe in. A philosophy which I try to adopt in daily life. I wonder if I had have said "Stick to the facts" would I have been infracted, It is basically the same as not voluntering information.
A response to the above would be appreciated before any other action is taken.0 -
I will request an admin review for you now.
dudara0 -
Advertisement
-
Infraction appears harsh at first glance ... but I can see why it's been applied.
I accept your view on "volunteer" and what it means, so let's leave that to one side.
While I have no reason to doubt your intentions; I can read the post in question as crossing the line.
Be careful what you say and don't get caught in a lie.
... "caught in a lie" ... that seems a bit loaded to me.
The truth seems to be that you have no income, have no savings and are seeking work. Stick to this and there will be no reason to refuse you.
... "truth seems to be" ... that seems loaded to me also.
... "Stick to this" ... again, that seems loaded.
Any of these could be and perhaps should be forgiven ... but the three of them in total leads people, including me, to interpret the post as "Be economical with the truth".
It's all about interpretation. You know exactly what you meant to say ... the rest of us can only go by the contents of the post.
"Stick to the facts" is good advice. No ambiguity there.
Before I make a decision on the infraction ... can you see the other side of the debate?0 -
Infraction appears harsh at first glance ... but I can see why it's been applied.
I accept your view on "volunteer" and what it means, so let's leave that to one side.
While I have no reason to doubt your intentions; I can read the post in question as crossing the line.
Be careful what you say and don't get caught in a lie.
... "caught in a lie" ... that seems a bit loaded to me.
Regarding been careful and not getting caught in a lie. From my point of view this is good advice that I would interpet as dont lie. From my point of view not getting caught in a lie is the same as not lying. I was always taught if you lie you will eventually get caught out by it.The truth seems to be that you have no income, have no savings and are seeking work. Stick to this and there will be no reason to refuse you.
... "truth seems to be" ... that seems loaded to me also.
"truth seems to be" I merely phrased it like this to not insinuate that the OP was lying about his knowledge of the property in his name or any income derived from it, and take him at his word about his income and savings and that what he said was the truth.
"Stick to this" In context "this" = the truth.
... "Stick to this" ... again, that seems loaded.Any of these could be and perhaps should be forgiven ... but the three of them in total leads people, including me, to interpret the post as "Be economical with the truth".
It's all about interpretation. You know exactly what you meant to say ... the rest of us can only go by the contents of the post.
"Stick to the facts" is good advice. No ambiguity there.
Before I make a decision on the infraction ... can you see the other side of the debate?
Even if you were sum up the post and interpret it the way you did as "Be economical with the truth" this at no point would include lying and would not amount to social welfare fraud. Telling the truth to all that is asked of you is not fraud, even if you are economical with it.
You ask, can I see the other side of the debate? I can see how most conversational sentences written in English can have multiple meanings and can see how I may have been interpreted incorrectly. But the option of debate was removed from me by an infraction.
From my point of view I made a couple of posts with good intentions. One other poster in the thread posts publicly that what I said amounts to fraud. The mod infracts me for endorsing social welfare fraud and forbids me from defending or clarifying what I had said. This is not a debate. This is a defamation.
As mentioned in a previous post in this thread, "This, and any confusion about the meaning of my posts could all have been cleared up in a couple of sentences." if I was not gagged.
If I had said something blatantly about encouraging social welfare fraud and got a ban that would be the end of it. What I said was misinterpreted, an accusation was made and was backed up by a mod and I got gagged. This is the frustration, what I said in my mind was clear but was apparently ambiguous in meaning. What I would have expected from a mod would have been a warning regarding the rules of the thread and the potential ambiguity of my post, either in the thread or by PM asking for clarity on what I said, failure to respond to that within a set period, could then be followed with an infraction or timed based ban for braking the rules.
To sum up the above...
Do I see how my post could be misinterpreted? Yes I do. But there are only two alternatives to this. 1 Every post on the forums would have to be written in 'legalese' or 2. Where there may be some ambiguity, request clarification before action is taking. Defamation should not be the first course of action taken.
What I said could have and would have been clarified to the poster who suggested I was endorsing SW fraud in my next post, but this option was removed from me. This is why I believe the infraction came too soon in that thread.0 -
Infraction stands.0
Advertisement