looking after family
- Thread starter Threepwood
- Start date
Caporegime
You're backtracking, it's obvious. I'm not acting like a child at all, you're the one throwing the insults?
There may be potential fraud in your opinion, but your post didn't just allude to that. It's quite clear what your own opinion of it is outside of the law, you got extremely triggered and stated you had to put the OP on ignore to avoid a ban.
Do better, it's not hard.
Last edited:
In the same reply you just replied too...
Okay I must be an evil and backtracking human to give him benefit of the doubt and say potential, or maybe thats to cover my own legal standing?
It was very clear in my first post that this is potentially a fraud case, hence giving reflection back to that case earlier this year about disabled savings.
Incorrect on OP warning again, stated ignore due to the nonsense the OP has been raising the last 2 weeks or so.
Caporegime
No, it wasn't very clear that was all you were banging on about as you threw in some of your own opinion.
I'm not wrong about the "OP warning", as what you wrote clearly suggests that you were putting him on ignore because you didn't want to give your true thoughts on what you thought about it.
It really is pathetic that your cop out here is "because of a case that happened months ago" and "because of OPs other threads". Talk about someone not owning what they write.
This is your first post in this thread for reference, nothing about it suggests you are putting him on ignore for any other reason:
Last edited:
I'll ask the question again:
Where's the fraud?
Just because someone saved money before, which I should point out wasn't fraudulent, doesn't mean that the OP is committing fraud, does it?
You must live a rather odd life if that's how your logic works.
I wouldn't say evil or backtracking as much as I'd say "probably a bit dim".
Stick us all on your ignore list though, probably easier for you to just hide from the truth than acknowledge it.
Last edited:
According to you and diddums who have chosen to take my reply and push their own narrative of it.
Correct me if im wrong, we went through this months ago with an outcome for a very similar situation.
People were not happy for the outcome, but didnt understand there was rules to be followed.
You are wrong, just because I didnt type it as such.
I have put OP on ignore because of the stupid creepy threads raised by him.
You forgetting the thread he started about his own stalking last week?
But again, put words in to my mouth. Childish.
Case couple months ago, disabled guy raised thousands to go on holiday.
Asked council for more for his carers, he shouldn't of been saving and if it was spare money, money should have gone back to the state and his carers were not going to get a tax payer paid holiday.
But none of you remember this now, convenient to your argument I guess.
I'd say theres been a few dim moments in these last replies, but I'm mature enough to say its not just from me.
Are you and Aya?
Caporegime
We didn't push our own narrative, it's clear what you wrote...
What happened months ago in a public case may have some relevance, but you jumped straight to accusing OP of something and saying you had to put him on ignore to avoid a ban. Where did OP raise thousands for himself to go on holiday? Where did he ask the council for more for his carers?
Didn't type it as such
yeah, nice cop out. You really need to take some of your own advice and apply some of that reading comprehension to your own posts.
Last edited:
Might be wrong but I thought that case related to 'Direct Payments' which are a different thing to PIP,DLA etc. because they're specifically made to 'directly pay' for certain particular requirements and activities, they're not a general benefit.
I'll ask the question again:
Where's the fraud?
Just because someone saved money before, which I should point out wasn't fraudulent, doesn't mean that the OP is committing fraud,
So how does this logic work then? Are all unemployed people fraudsters then? Or all disabled people? Or do they need to be both unemployed and disabled to be a guaranteed fraudster? How does that work?
You're gonna hafta help me with this one, I'm failing to see a link between some bloke from months ago and the OP, can you clarify this?
Maybe I'm also a bit dim, who knows.
Soldato
Some benefits are rightly excluded from the savings cap and rightly so.
No, I was reflecting on a similar incident only months ago.
I didnt say OP raised thousands for themselves, why do you insist I said these things, when I clearly have not.
Disability money being saved and passed on to someone who's not disabled or on benefits is clearly an overpayment of benefits, thats an element of fraud.
I type it how I want to, I knew what I meant and my logic behind it.
The guy is a creep.
Finally someone who has engaged his brain, thank you for the information, would that apply in this case? Or is this guess work since we cant identify what and where this benefit from OP has come from?
I wont call you that, but I know you are happy to sling it round on users.
Link - Both on disability benefits and both saving. Only difference is at least the guy with carers was trying to spend the money on himself. OP is trying to give away his disability funds.
Previous guy was blasted on this forum for saving public tax money distributed to himself for his disability, clearly funds he did not need and was not using, whats the difference with OP here?
I would be surprised if the OP was getting anything other than regular DLA / PIP from what he has described on here (that i've noticed), for which having and/or making savings whilst in receipt would be perfectly fine afaik.
None of us can be 100% sure unless the OP wants to open up about exactly how his benefits are paid and what they are.
Don
Have you tried reseating the GPU in the slot?
Thank you for a sensible and guided reply.
Okay so savings is permitted within certain remits, which like you said really depends on situation from the OP.
I tried to be a bit cheeky with the OP, seems GD is too serious discussion these days...
Too many knickers twisted.
Caporegime
No, that was your cop out. You think everyone here is a mind reader and that your posts were alluding to another case or OP's other threads.
I didn't insist that you said that, I asked the question because you mentioned the other case as if they were similar.
This last point isn't always true either, depending on the benefits being received and whether there is a savings cap.
I never said you couldn't type how you wanted, but when you write things like that and then try to suggest that putting him on ignore was purely down to his creepy threads, it looks a bit silly and again, a cop out.
You would have already had him on ignore if that was the reason. Everyone else can see that you're implying that you put him on ignore because you didn't want to give your true opinion on what he was doing here because you'd probably get banned for it.
Hahaha, a bit cheeky, no, you were the one who went why so serious, accusing him of benefit fraud and putting him on ignore because your true thoughts on the matter might be moderated.
Last edited:
I think with disability related benefits, it's not even 'within certain remits' - they're excluded from that sort of means testing entirely as far as I know.
The direct payments thing is different because those payments are made as part of a plan - having quickly skimmed back over the case you're referring to - he was allocated money for 'social activities' like cinema visits but was choosing not to do those activities so he could spend the money on something else (in that particular case, potentially even something else they would have funded anyway, if it was part of his care plan).
FWIW - your opening post(s) in the thread doesn't really come across as 'a bit cheeky', more accusatory. Perhaps a smiley or two wouldn't go amiss if the substance of the post is meant in jest.
GD, get over it.
How many times lad, incorrect.
I have seen his posts over the past couple of weeks, from the weird to the creepy. This is too much now, as frankly I think its all nonsense anyway, I suspect its all lies.
And in my view they were similar.
All you did were come back and call me a Tory's wet dream, seems like a logical way to respond.
Oh you'll get over it.
Funny enough, neither is your sentence either, why? Because context is king.
The OP put the source of his spending on his relative clearly in his first post:
"I had a literal nest egg of £30k, because before my stroke I had been saving to buy a wee fisherman's cottage in the highlands of scotland somewhere, that was my dream,"
"I had a literal nest egg of £30k, because before my stroke I had been saving to buy a wee fisherman's cottage in the highlands of scotland somewhere, that was my dream,"
Definitely 100% fraud then, no other possibility. Evil people, dunno how they sleep at night.
Caporegime
You’re a completely disingenuous poster to be honest. Often claiming it’s other people’s reading comprehension at fault when in reality it’s the way you write. Then instead of owning it, you try to backtrack claiming you were just being a bit cheeky.