Burton: Garda checkpoints on estates to weed out welfare cheats

RustyNut wrote: »

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.

Your going to be driving a vehicle therefore will be obliged to give the guard your driving license, if you don't have that you are obliged to give your name and address...


Edit: sorry missed the part in your post about driving the car.

Celly Smunt wrote: »

It is the set up of these checkpoints i have a problem with.It is pure power pushing that imposes on people trying to get on with their lives without and hindrance from the state.

I have no problem with fraudsters being caught (obviously),i have a problem however of being treated like a suspect by a civil servant with no authority and having to prove myself not,on the side of the road.

The whole thing stinks of fascism and being guilty until proven innocent.

hmmm....in which case I mostly agree with you. Though, I've got to wonder would a little bit of inconvenience be worth it if it'd make a nice dent in welfare fraud. (I suspect you won't agree). I don't know quite know what the numbers are like but what if it was a case where you might be stopped at one of these checkpoints, however income tax could be lowered by 1% on the back of the cutdown on social welfare fraud. (they may not be realistic numbers of course)

Personally I think it would, however, having said that I'd be well pissed off if I got stopped on the way into work and treated as a suspect.

I think there's probably better places to start looking into this, such as linking the tax and social welfare records, as long as it's possible to work and pay taxes and at the same time claim benefits I would think there'd be a quicker and easier win to be had that way and I would imagine there are probably other ways data the government already have could be used to look into these matters, all within the framework of existing data protection laws.

This post has been deleted.

wexie wrote: »

You don't really think they're comparable scenarios do you?
Last time I checked it was still quite acceptable to criticise the government.

Also been a while since anybody has been executed for making fun of Enda Kenny's hair I believe.

You know these things come in dribs and drabs that's how they get in ? There are reason's Europeans are scared of fascism are there not ...

wexie wrote: »

That's not fear you're talking about, that's pure unadulterated paranoia

Ah so it's only a coincidence these ultra right wing parties are gaining power in the EU now is it ? extreme hardship due to economic pressure sure that's never happened before.

My name is URL wrote: »

If her own dept. was doing its job properly there'd be no need to draft Gardai in to do it for them. Aren't there supposed to be regular meetings between long term claimants and inspectors? I was under the impression that people were required to show they were seeking employment by providing copies of cover letters sent to employers and any replies received.. and if people failed to do so then they quite rightly had their claim re-examined.. why isn't this the case any more?

This is a cheap and lazy attempt by Burton and her dept. to be seen to be doing something, when in reality they do fcuk all to tackle prospective false or fraudulent claims.

The IMF actually brought this up. The main problem is that there are actually way too few staff per claimant. I saw the ratios compared to the UK, Germany etc and they were absolutely ridiculous here.

The civil service recruitment freeze and an inability to move staff around from other departments is what's causing this.

I find the way the Government works is quite baffling at times. I mean, OK you need to reduce numbers, but you need to do it in a targeted way and not in a way that ends up with a counterproductive situation like this arising.

....

I also think if you completely redesigned how the system works, you might prevent fraud before it even begins thus saving yourself a fortune in losses and enforcement costs.

...

This is how I'd do it:

1) Issue claimants with biometric ID cards and install finger print scanners in the post offices.
You would be required to go down and 'swipe on' once every two weeks.

2) Your claim would be paid into a nominated bank account automatically within 24 hours. Cash would not be handed out at post offices as this is a huge security nightmare and expense to the state and puts people's lives at risk.

3) We own the banks, so they could be required to make available a special type of current account with limited services for welfare claimants to receive money into. This would have a debit card facility and ATM card and internet banking facilities limited to transfers to Irish accounts only.

The ATM card would also not function outside the Republic of Ireland.

4) You'd be required to keep a record of your job applications either on paper in a file provided to you by the department, or by filing copies of letters / emails etc online.
This wouldn't necessarily be checked for everyone but a random sample of claimants would have it checked.

Stuff like that would eliminate a lot of basic fraud very quickly.

...

What they're doing at the moment seems to be a bit like if the shops decided to have absolutely no security whatsoever and then wanted the state to waste loads of money on policing and prosecuting crime and having police going around demanding that members of the public prove they're not shop lifters.