I thought this government was partly about rolling back Labour's Big Brother government.

Not so:

'Credit agencies have been called in by ministers hunting for massive savings in government spending to help slash Britain's £3bn benefit fraud bill.

A nationwide clampdown on bogus housing benefit claims will be launched this year using techniques borrowed from the private sector for assessing creditworthiness. A similar drive against fraudulent claims for incapacity benefit is expected to follow. The companies will compare information about private household spending - such as utility bills, mobile phone payment details and satellite television subscriptions - against benefit records to identify potential fraudsters.

Civil liberties groups last night raised concerns over potential breaches of personal privacy, while the use of the technique threatens to embarrass Nick Clegg's promises on behalf of the coalition government to roll back state intrusion in individuals' lives.'

Yes there are fraudulent benefit claimants (just as there are fraudulent MPs), but this government seems hell-bent on making those at the bottom of the heap feel like frauds all the way to the Job Centre, where staff treat them as low-lifes.

What if someone is spending on their credit card while they are on benefits so they can pay it off once they are back in work? They will automatically be suspect.

plus:

'It also raises concerns that innocent people could be unnecessarily investigated on the back of faulty or out-of-date financial information.'

Nick Clegg hang your head in shame. Get out of this right-wing Tory government while you can. They're taking you for a ride, my boy. (And I voted for you)

All seems perfectly reasonable to me -

IF people are spending more that they (supposedly) earn, and thus ripping-off more worthy benefit claimants (such as OAPs) then they SHOULD be exposed (and prosecuted).

david wrote:
What if someone is spending on their credit card while they are on benefits so they can pay it off once they are back in work

I suspect it will be the payments (not the spending) that is being looked at.

If someone is paying back more per month than they are admitting receiving, it would look a little odd ?

In The Know wrote:

I suspect it will be the payments (not the spending) that is being looked at.



Not the case. If you read the Independent article, it's quite clear that they are looking at what you spend and on what.

david wrote:
Not the case. If you read the Independent article, it's quite clear that they are looking at what you spend and on what.

That may be a case of mis-reporting, David.

If people are running-up debts on credit cards that's their problem and the problem of whoever was daft enough to give someone who has no income a credit card !

I still think its mainly payments they will be looking at. If someone claims to be only getting say £70 a week dole and yet repays £100 a month on their card ?

Perfectly reasonable indeed. And what a great idea to give the BP "sun king" a new job as "efficiency czar".

"The British government appointed Lord Browne, the former CEO of BP, as a new “super-director” to cut waste and increase the efficiency of the British government machine in Whitehall. The announcement of Browne’s appointment was delayed while officials weighed the consequences of inevitable controversy. Browne is widely blamed for the drastic cuts of BP’s safety and maintenance program of its oil installations in the U.S. while he was BP’s CEO between 1998 and 2007. The consequence of those cuts were three major accidents in the U.S.—an explosion at the Texas City refinery in 2005, two oil spills in Alaska in 2006; and the current catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico"

www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/...p-oil-spill-outrage/