Burton: Garda checkpoints on estates to weed out welfare cheats

Yawns wrote: »

He can't. Unless the guard has reason to suspect you've committed an offence you don't even have to tell him if you are going to work or not. He can't assume you are signing on and then say he suspects you of working whilst signing either. He would need proof. You don't need to talk to the social worker at all if you don't like.

Welfare fraud is an offence so if you are stopped the guard can ask you for your details. These will be passed onto the welfare officer who will check your details to see if you are claiming. If you are claiming you will be invited into the office for an interview if you are just an innocent passing well then you have been inconvenienced for 3/5 minutes.

Amazes me how everytime the gov announces measures to crack down on crime the same names appear screaming about rights abuse and civil liberties being stripped away.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

With no evidence?

I can see the judge chasing the little hitlers out of court.

You can be breathalysed on only a suspicion

bumper234 wrote: »

You can be breathalysed on only a suspicion

Yes but being breathalysed doesn't really equate to having your house searched.

Gatling

If anybody wants to take legal advice off based some chap on board to court after you been caught ,

Let us know how it works out with the judge

This post has been deleted.

bumper234 wrote: »

Welfare fraud is an offence so if you are stopped the guard can ask you for your details.

What is the basis for the suspicion of welfare fraud? For not speaking to the social welfare officer? You are under no obligation to speak to a social worker on the road, at a checkpoint if you do not wish to. Even if they have a guard with them.

The guard must have a valid reason for suspecting welfare fraud. Simply leaving your house and refusing to talk to an inspector from the DSP is not a valid basis for suspecting fraud.

bumper234 wrote: »

Welfare fraud is an offence so if you are stopped the guard can ask you for your details. These will be passed onto the welfare officer who will check your details to see if you are claiming. If you are claiming you will be invited into the office for an interview if you are just an innocent passing well then you have been inconvenienced for 3/5 minutes.

Amazes me how everytime the gov announces measures to crack down on crime the same names appear screaming about rights abuse and civil liberties being stripped away.

Seriously how is this not getting through

1.You don't have to share anything with the inspector
2.You don't have to tell the guard where you are going
3.if it comes to the point where you might feel pressure where by you must give the guard information,you can request it to be a confidential matter in which he/she cannot share it with the inspector.
4.With no information,the inspector cannot prove anything.

This has nothing to do with inconvenience.This is to do with you having your rights and not walking all over them yourself.

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Yes but being breathalysed doesn't really equate to having your house searched.

You can be questioned about welfare fraud. (Suspicion of)

Valetta

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I wonder how all the "nothing to hide" brigade would feel if they were stopped and had their houses searched on a mere suspicion?

Wouldn't bother me in the least.

I'd make them a cup of tea and be happy that they were clamping down on fraudulent social welfare cheats.

bumper234 wrote: »

You can be questioned about welfare fraud. (Suspicion of)

see my above post.

This post has been deleted.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

Welfare fraud is an offence so if you are stopped the guard can ask you for your details. These will be passed onto the welfare officer who will check your details to see if you are claiming.

Wouldn't they need your prior consent before they start sharing confidential info with welfare officials.. or are the Gardai above data protection laws? :rolleyes:

The amount of reverence to authority people have in this country is embarrassing. If it's not the church people are bowing to it's politicians and police. Pathetic bunch of imbeciles.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I wonder how all the "nothing to hide" brigade would feel if they were stopped and had their houses searched on a mere suspicion?

Why would they search my house? I give my details, its confirmed I am not signing on, thanks and goodbye.....5 minutes of my time pretty painless.

My name is URL wrote: »

The amount of reverence to authority people have in this country is embarrassing. If it's not the church people are bowing to it's politicians and police. Pathetic bunch of imbeciles.

Nice to see we haven't lost our master and servant state of mind i suppose.

Yawns wrote: »

What is the basis for the suspicion of welfare fraud? For not speaking to the social welfare officer? You are under no obligation to speak to a social worker on the road, at a checkpoint if you do not wish to. Even if they have a guard with them.

The guard must have a valid reason for suspecting welfare fraud. Simply leaving your house and refusing to talk to an inspector from the DSP is not a valid basis for suspecting fraud.

A van gets stopped with 4 people in overalls in it if 2 refuse to give details then they will be suspected of something so further investigation will take place. A car with one person in it is stopped the person answers the questions and is deemed to not be signing on the dole then thats the end of tuat.

wexie

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Seriously how is this not getting through

1.You don't have to share anything with the inspector
2.You don't have to tell the guard where you are going
3.if it comes to the point where you might feel pressure where by you must give the guard information,you can request it to be a confidential matter in which he/she cannot share it with the inspector.
4.With no information,the inspector cannot prove anything.

This has nothing to do with inconvenience.This is to do with you having your rights and not walking all over them yourself.

Just to clarify, do you have an issue with the actual way these 'checkpoints' (allegedly) are being setup, or do you have an issue with them being indiscriminate?

Would you have an issue with this being done if the checkpoints (as some people are alluding to) are (somewhat) targeted?

Or would you still have an issue with it if a (suspected) wellfare fraudster was being questioned like this by the side of the road purely on principle?

Valetta wrote: »

Wouldn't bother me in the least.

I'd make them a cup of tea and be happy that they were clamping down on fraudulent social welfare cheats.

Well what if they then decided come around to search your house once a week. Then once every 48 hours. Then once every 24 hours. How about they just come and install cameras in your home and chip every human in your house. Where does the line get drawn for you for personal private issues?

How about every Sunday if you're heading out to a dinner with family. Can they pop over to your table and ask you all about welfare fraud and demand details?

The above ott remarks are about equal to the absurdity of the remarks you and others are making in regards to having to hand over all details to a stranger on the street cos they said so.

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Seriously how is this not getting through

1.You don't have to share anything with the inspector
2.You don't have to tell the guard where you are going
3.if it comes to the point where you might feel pressure where by you must give the guard information,you can request it to be a confidential matter in which he/she cannot share it with the inspector.
4.With no information,the inspector cannot prove anything.

This has nothing to do with inconvenience.This is to do with you having your rights and not walking all over them yourself.

The guard will be on secondment to the DSP and will be sharing information to prevent crime, what part of that do you not get?

Cd_doe

You gotta love after hours.

There's an operation being set up to catch fraudsters, people who are claiming social welfare and working.

Yes, people who are illegally taking the tax YOU pay.

....and everyone complains about it.

bumper234 wrote: »

A van gets stopped with 4 people in overalls in it if 2 refuse to give details then they will be suspected of something so further investigation will take place. A car with one person in it is stopped the person answers the questions and is deemed to not be signing on the dole then thats the end of tuat.

2 refuse to give details-Under no obligation to give details.
The 2 share the details with the guard-the guard cannot share the details.
No details,no investigation.

bumper234 wrote: »

A van gets stopped with 4 people in overalls in it if 2 refuse to give details then they will be suspected of something so further investigation will take place. A car with one person in it is stopped the person answers the questions and is deemed to not be signing on the dole then thats the end of tuat.

What happens if all refuse to answer? All suspected of welfare fraud? Just because 2 people are smart enough to know their rights, does not equate to them committing fraud. You have a right not to incriminate yourself you know?

bumper234 wrote: »

The guard will be on secondment to the DSP and will be sharing information to prevent crime, what part of that do you not get?

You have heard of Data protection and garda confidentiality right? :rolleyes:

Celly Smunt wrote: »

You have heard of Data protection and garda confidentiality right? :rolleyes:

I think at this stage he's a bit like Homer closing his eyes and running a red light. If I don't see it, it's not illegal. Sure what would the DPD do and what in the hell is a garda confidentiality agreement when it's not at home in the bed.

Celly Smunt wrote: »

2 refuse to give details-Under no obligation to give details.
The 2 share the details with the guard-the guard cannot share the details.
No details,no investigation.

If a guard suspects a crime is being committed (welfare fraud) he can ask yo8 your details. If you refuse to give said details you can be held until your identity has been confirmed.

RustyNut

bumper234 wrote: »

You can be questioned about welfare fraud. (Suspicion of)

But you are under no obligation to awnser any questions. You are not even obliged to identify yourself to a Garda never mind a SW inspetor unless you are driving a vehicle or the Guard has "reasonable" suspicion that you have committed an offence.

Hitchens

THE IMMIGRANT COUNCIL Of Ireland (ICI) is seeking assurances that racial profiling will not form part of the proposed crackdown on social welfare fraud.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.