Why Boris is right about this


11:10 am - January 10th 2012

by Richard Exell    


      Share on Tumblr

There, I bet you didn’t expect to read that headline! But the revelation that London Mayor Boris Johnson submitted comments to the consultation on Disability Living Allowance reform prompts an unusual response.

It isn’t just the political frisson that comes from knowing that BoJo’s submission had to be feretted out with a FoI application, it’s the fact that he criticises the plans to replace DLA with Personal Independence Payment for exactly the right reasons:

– Ending automatic awards for some groups – as the Mayor’s submission says:

Claims should be based on the needs and circumstances of the individual applying. Groups that are currently listed in the ‘automatic award section’ (Annex 1, page 37) already have to supply medical evidence satisfying specific medical criteria to receive DLA. Automatic entitlement should remain the same for these claimants.

It looks as if the switch from DLA to PIP is more about cutting costs than about supporting disabled people –

– The newspaper reports about fraud in disability benefits are extremely misleading:

Department of Work and Pensions statistics give the overall fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance as being less than 0.5%.

– Most important of all, the Mayor’s submission criticises the key difference between Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment – which will be used to cut the entitlement of people whose impairments may be less severe, but who still face high disability-related costs:

The Mayor does not support this change, as those on the lower rate care component may have additional costs as a result of their impairment but may lose their access to this benefit as part of the proposed removal under the reforms.

On issues like transport Boris Johnson gets a lot wrong, but here he makes a series of fair points (compare the TUC submission, which makes similar points, though at greater length).

For more about the plans for Personal Independence Payment, have a look at the Responsible Reform report (which I posted about earlier today) and sign @patspetition.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Richard is an regular contributor. He is the TUC’s Senior Policy Officer covering social security, tax credits and labour market issues.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Fight the cuts

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


If people understood how arduous, humiliating, complex, and dismissive the system is already, they would never accuse claimants of ‘languishing.’ DLA goes to help people in work and out of it…live. Keep it unchanged: it is so well-targetted, and thi scut is idealogical, not by necessity.

Department of Work and Pensions statistics give the overall fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance as being less than 0.5%.

Aaagh!!! Not this one again!!!!

These statistics are based on the level of fraud detected by the DWP.

Considering that they are one of the most useless and bureaucratic organisations on the planet and they are not in the least bit motivated to discover fraud, it is astonishing they have stumbled across as much as half a percent.

What is not known, because it is very difficult to assess, is the real level of fraud, given that nobody is likely to volunteer the information. For example, Sue Marsh has been repeatedly accused, on this blog, of being a malingerer (she can write so she can work) but, in reality, it is probably only Sue herself who can assess how debilitating her condition is.

So how can anyone know how much systemic fraud is going on?

The only indications we have are from the results of the Atos assessments which is one reason why Atos are so unpopular with the disablist lobby.

@2

Atos have nothing to do with DLA.

And the best way of looking at fraud is to look at investigations by the DWP. They have a hotline where suspected fraud can be reported – something which happens a lot as most disabled people are regularly verbally (and sometimes physically) abused when they are out in public and a very high proportion of disabled people have been investigated after anonymous tip-offs by members of the public.

And the fact is that over 99% of investigations, including face-to-face visists and all sorts of other checks found no evidence of fraud.

And I’m inclined to rely on those figures as DLA is one of the most efficiently and well administered benefits in the country.

Of course, if you really think the DWP is so bad, then surely you’ll be supporting disability campaigner’s calls for DLA not to be replaced with an administratively complex new system but instead for the government to fix the problems with the existing one?

@2 You ought to meet some of the staff at the DWP, if you honestly think there ain’t no motivation in the DWP to catch out ‘scroungers’, that meeting would soon set you straight. Hell, give some of em a gun and tell em to hunt benefits cheats and they’ll think it’s bloody Christmas come early, they might even work for free!

#2

Didn’t the DWP increase the amount of staff searching for fraud in recent years, and still not find any more than around 0.5%? I’m sure I read that on this site.

But anyway, why would anyone assume that the DWP are not motivated to uncover fraud? It would seem to me that they are incredibly motivated, given the govt’s position on benefits, the apparent need for public spending cuts, the mainstream media view of benefit scroungers etc. Everyone wants them to find all these supposed malingerers and throw the book at ’em, so why can’t they do it?

Why is it that even ‘dob your neighbour in’ schemes very rarely lead to any actual fraud being uncovered either? Even though the govt push them as hard as they can?

There is always a figure of undetected crime – that goes for any criminal offence. How much time and money should be spent chasing this unknown figure in this particular case (CCTV in every benefit claimant’s home perhaps?), before the law of diminishing returns sets in (if it hasn’t already)? The other option is to simply assume the figure of ‘real’ fraud based on a whim and work from that. But that is clearly barking mad as a strategy.

Atos’s assessments have already been heavily criticised, and the amount of people having their decisions overturned on appeal should show you how accurate they are.

All we have to go on that is remotely scientific or reliable are the DWP’s own statistics, and it makes no sense at all to ignore them and start making up figures, as the media have done, or work from how much money ‘needs’ saving, as the govt are doing. I think that is the point the OP is making.

Pagar @ 2

Aaagh!!! Not this one again!!!!

Yeah, in other words, If the answer does not fit the ideological prejudices of the Right, then the answer must be incorrect. Look at the amount of time and money spent chasing up benefit fraud. Look at the money the Government of the day spend telling us that they are looking into benefit fraud. Yet despite all this, these people have been able to find a far higher proportion of benefit fraud than this if fraud was as rife as the Tory press suggested, wouldn’t they? Surely it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, if, say seventy per cent of claimants were fraudulent?

I wonder what the yearly spend per conviction rate is? I wonder how that compares to say tax evasion or corruption investigations? Perhaps even insurance fraud for that matter?

Just because you don’t like the answer, it doesn’t give you the right to pull out the number that would satisfy your petty little bigoted mind.

The only indications we have are from the results of the Atos assessments which is one reason why Atos are so unpopular with the disablist lobby.

I have been ‘contributing’ (if that is the right word, though many would disagree) to this site for a number of years now and in that time I have had my views of the Right in politics pretty much cemented in all of those years. I am the first to admit I have fairly cynical and jaundice views regarding those of us who are on the Right of British politics.

Your above statement pretty much acts as a microcosm of everything I see wrong with the political reactionary right.

You have dismissed the ACTUAL figures of fraud as inaccurate because you ‘know’ them to be wrong, you believe Atos to be right, even though they are not attempting to asses fraud. You dismiss the genuine complaints from people who have been passed as ‘fit to work’ even when it is obvious that these people could never hope to hold down a job.

Rather than actually ‘look’ at the outrageous decisions passed down from Atos, you assume that because they come up with answers that you want, they are honestly carrying out assessments.

In short, you make things to bolster your own prejudices and dismiss terminal cancer patients as fraudsters.

And people wonder why I use terms like ‘scum’ to describe such people?

7. Anon E Mouse

It is quite clear that Boris Johnson is far more competent a mayor than Ken Livingston was – certainly with respect to Lee Jasper and those other crooks stealing from the London taxpayers but all he is doing here is trying to capture the Labour vote with this….

“and they are not in the least bit motivated to discover fraud”

An unbelievably ignorant statement. A bit like saying Tesco’s aren’t motivated to sell things.

Jim @ 6

You have dismissed the ACTUAL figures of fraud as inaccurate because you ‘know’ them to be wrong, you believe Atos to be right, even though they are not attempting to asses fraud.

In order to qualify as a fraud statistic (to be part of the 0.5%) a case has to pass three criteria.

1) The basic conditions for receipt of benefit, or the rate of benefit in
payment, are not being met.

2) The customer can reasonably be expected to be aware of the effect on
entitlement.

3) Benefit stops or reduces as a result of the review.

http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_apr08_mar09.pdf

So we are clear that the DWP are measuring detected fraud? (Incidentally the 0.5% figure is from 2004/5).

And if you look at what I said @2 (rather than what you imagined I said) you will see that what I said was that it is very difficult to assess the levels of fraud related to DLA because of the nature of the qualification for the benefit.

If I tell you that I have no job or no house, that is independently verifiable. If I tell you I can’t walk because of the tremendous pain in my back, you pretty much have to take my word for it (until you can find a video of me playing football).

Atos are finding that about 40% of claimants were not entitled to the benefit they were claiming though, as you rightly point, some of these will have been appealed. I have no idea of they are correct in their assessments- what I said was that this figure gives some indication of fraud levels (and they are obviously a great deal higher than 0.5%).

In short, you make things to bolster your own prejudices and dismiss terminal cancer patients as fraudsters. And people wonder why I use terms like ‘scum’ to describe such people?

Eh!!!

If we are to have any rational debate on this subject, you need to calm down a bit, mate.

Pagar @ 9

In order to qualify as a fraud statistic (to be part of the 0.5%) a case has to pass three criteria.

So we are clear that the DWP are measuring detected fraud?

Yes, fraud is a criminal offence, so when we are talking about fraud is it too much to ask that we use that we use the number of fraud cases that are actually taken to court? That number is around less than one percent of the total claims.
So why is that so difficult to accept. We are talking about criminal offences, not just ‘that bloke down the street doesn’t look ill to me’ crap.

You cannot assume that just because you want the doctors cannot prove he is lying that thw paitent has got away with lying, can you? Why make such an assumption?

If I tell you I can’t walk because of the tremendous pain in my back, you pretty much have to take my word for it

So, you would never use an x-ray or other medical evidence? Blood tests, biopsies etc to asses medical conditions? MRI scans, perhaps?

You are seriously suggesting that walking into the dole office and saying ‘I have MS and demand benefits’ actually works? You do not think it may be possible that if you have been diagnosed with such an illness, the doctor may have actually found medical evidence?

I have no idea of they are correct in their assessments- what I said was that this figure gives some indication of fraud levels (and they are obviously a great deal higher than 0.5%).

Bullshit!!!!!! There is absolutely no evidence for that statement. What has happened is that Atos have completely redefined the criteria for which you will be defined as ‘fit for work’. People who have been diagnosed with certain diseases like terminal cancer have been found to be able to work, not because they were exaggerating their symptoms, what has happened is that these symptoms have been discounted for the test. The tests have been rigged so that people with profound difficulty in doing any reasonable tasks have been passed as fit for work on completely arbitrary results.

If we are to have any rational debate on this subject, you need to calm down a bit, mate.

First of all, you people need to start telling the truth before we can have a rational debate.

Pagar

Atos are not assessing fraud. They are assessing whether someone is fit to work or not against set of criteria where the bar is set very high.

Before the assessment, the only criteria required to claim ESA is a medical certificate. Once you attend the ATOS assessment you are required to score enough points to be found unfit for work. Someone who does not score enough points has commited NO FRAUD. They have claimed benefit within the regulations governing benefits.

There are two issues with the ATOS assessments themselves:

1) Do they actually assess the claimant correctly aginst the criteria for fitness to work? – the rate of successful appeals suggests that they do not.

2) Do the criteria themselves really represent whether someone is fit for work or not? – I would have to say not. For instance, according to the criteria, if you cannot walk or propell yourself more than 50 metres you score enough points to be found unfit to work – however, many of these people can work. But those unable to sit for more than 30 minutes, plus not able to stand for more than 10 minutes are deemed fit for work – how the hell are you supposed to get a day’s work done if you can’t sit or stand for any meaningful length of time? Then there are issues completely missed off the criteria – for instance those who have bowel disorders meaning they have diarrhea all day, plus pain and nausea are not covered on the criteria at all – how much work would you be able to get done having to have diarrhea 20 times a day, with stomach pains and feeling like crap, everyday, and who would employ anyone in that condition?

The criteria for fitness to work do not reliably show whether or not someone is fit to work, to say nothing of not being applied correctly by ATOS.

And as has been already pointed out to you, ESA and DLA are not the same and have different criteria.

Missed out the only ‘health’ criteria for claiming ESA – obviously there are other things but in regards to fitness to work, the only thing required is a medical certificate.

@ Planeshift

An unbelievably ignorant statement. A bit like saying Tesco’s aren’t motivated to sell things.

That’s a terrible analogy.

Tesco is motivated to compete with other supermarkets and maximise profits for its shareholders.

The DWP is motivated to administer the governments benefit scheme. If they pay somebody who is not entitled to the payment it doesn’t matter to them- it’s not their money. And they are, ultimately, as dependent on the benefits system as are the claimants.

Furthermore, it is very much in their interest to keep detected fraud cases as low as possible (in case anyone begins to suspect they are not doing their jobs properly) and the Atos figures seem to confirm they were not.

Tax inspectors, on the other hand, are incentivised to maximise the ‘take’ from their allotted case load and have become much more aggressive since that changed.

Pagar @ 13

The DWP is motivated to administer the governments benefit scheme. If they pay somebody who is not entitled to the payment it doesn’t matter to them- it’s not their money. And they are, ultimately, as dependent on the benefits system as are the claimants.

Are you having a laugh? You do realise that employees in the DWP are subject to disciplinary proceedings and the like, if they do not do their jobs correctly? You do accept that they have job descriptions?

This is exactly the lazy thinking that you get from the Right?

Furthermore, it is very much in their interest to keep detected fraud cases as low as possible (in case anyone begins to suspect they are not doing their jobs properly)

Fucking bullshit.

As you were. Typo means that the rest of that is missing:

Fucking bullshit, it is Atos that have all the incentives to find people ‘fit for work’ because they are being paid to find people fit for work, by a Government whose interests lies in removing as many people, rightly or wrongly from the benefit system.

Atos, unlike Tesco have no moral or economic hazard if they make the wrong decision and poorly asses someone. They have no incentive to accurately asses people because they get a wodge of cash, irrespective of whether or not the claimant is genuinely unable to work or not. There is no penalty if they incorrectly asses someone as fit to work, so why bother?

Atos have been given a straw to siphon money from the taxpayer.

@ Jim

Are you having a laugh? You do realise that employees in the DWP are subject to disciplinary proceedings and the like, if they do not do their jobs correctly? You do accept that they have job descriptions?

About 1% of DWP staff are sacked annually, 20% of these for gross misconduct.

Offences include watching internet porn but there is no detail of anyone being sacked for over paying benefits.

Incidentally, I agree with your comments on Atos.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

“Are you having a laugh? You do realise that employees in the DWP are subject to disciplinary proceedings and the like, if they do not do their jobs correctly? You do accept that they have job descriptions?”

Jim, the reason so many jobs use a commission structure these days is that you get a LOT more out of your employees by offering them performance-based bonuses than you do with a job description and the latent threat of disciplinary action if the description is not filled (especially in the public sector, where workers tend to be unionised).

Without commission, people default to either doing the amount of work they feel is acceptable, or the minimum they think they can get away with. Bonuses mean that at least some of them will work their arses off to maximise their income.

Of course, misaligned incentive structures can do more harm than good, and this is an example of a situation where you’d want to be very careful. Simply giving people a bonus for reducing the number of payees would result in staff rejecting deserving cases. So I’m not saying we should introduce such a scheme – just that pagar’s right about incentivisation.

Pagar @ 16

Offences include watching internet porn but there is no detail of anyone being sacked for over paying benefits.

Which surely suggests that it rarely occurs or that when it occurs the disciplinary procedure works.

But what we are talking about fraud. You say that there is no incentive for those charged with investigating fraud to actually find fraud. Surely there are procedures in place to ensure they are working effectively. You say the incentive is to NOT investigate fraud, but you fail to explain why that is. So have another bite at the cherry.

Why is it that fraud investigators find so little actual fraud? Why is it that from memory (99%) of calls to the ‘fraud line’ turn out to be malicious?

Incidentally, I agree with your comments on Atos.

Yet these liars and thieves are the very people you claim are able to spot a fraud? Christ, look at their own earning and they will find all the fraud they want.

Jim,

You do realise your last line of your last post is potentially defamatory? You need evidence of fraud, and taking government money for doing very little of value to society is not fraud – it is the fault of the idiots who set up the bloody contract.

Watchman @ 19

The people who drew up the initial contract were far from idiots. They knew exactly what they are doing. This contract was set up by Labour to delibertly drive the disabled into poverty.

You need evidence of fraud,

But according to the Right, an absence of evidence is the surest proof that fraud is endemic.

Chaise @ 17

just that pagar’s right about incentivisation.

Er, I am not sure how you can be right about that? Surely the job of an investigator is to investigate crime? If no crime has been committed then there is an incentive to falsify evidence.

Why is it that from memory (99%) of calls to the ‘fraud line’ turn out to be malicious?

I’ve seen that statistic, but I don’t think it helps your case regarding the ruthless efficiency of DWP staff. Because if you believe that, over all, 99% of benefit claims are kosher, you are living in a parallel universe to the rest of us.

But the real culprit in creating this mess, in turning us into a nation of scroungers, cheats, informers, assessors, investigators, fraudsters, claimants and private sector, quota fulfilling bully boys is the means tested benefit system itself.

As you will be bored hearing me saying, what we need instead is a Citizens Basic Income.

Just think of it for a moment. No DWP at all. No filling in forms by way of proving your need. No scroungers, no cheats, no informers. No more humiliation, or vicious envy. No more poverty traps.

Just a single payment to everyone, your natural entitlement as a UK citizen, to ensure your basic needs of food, clothing and shelter are met.

That’s the solution.

To clarify two things: Atos were given the contract to administer personal interviews for DLA around 2008, separate from their contract for ESA work capability assessments.

Regarding the fraud prevalence rate; Labour increased the resources for fraud investigation and this did not significantly reduce the fraud prevalence.

The means of measuring fraud prevalence relies on a sample of interviews the Benefit Integrity Centres regularly conduct with randomly selected claimants. The details of these interviews are not posted online for obvious reasons, but I have had one and they can not be ‘aced’ by lying, the interviewer will check absolutely everything and wants material evidence to support your claim. They will score you from 1-4 where 1 is no suspicion, 2 is little suspicion, 3 is strong suspicion and 4 is ‘known but unproven fraud’. A 3 or a 4 will trigger a full fraud investigation into all your benefit claims.

Pagar @ 21

Because if you believe that, over all, 99% of benefit claims are kosher, you are living in a parallel universe to the rest of us.

Nope, it just means that type of failed human beings of who spend their entire time twitching out their windows are not medically qualified to fairly asses the medical conditions of people they hate. Perhaps they should get jobs in Atos as apparently being a loser is a pre-requisite to working there.

Isn’t funny that we have people who spend their lives watching the commings and goings of the entire Nation but we still get old biddies that lie decaying for four months as no-one can be arsed to call social services?

As you will be bored hearing me saying, what we need instead is a Citizens Basic Income.

Hmm, in that case we would need to get away from being a Country of petty jealously, greed and sheer fucking ignorance in the first place. Any move undertaken towards a Citizen’s income would be instantly rebuffed because it would start out with good intentions, but typical British spite would get in the way.

We have seen modest steps in that direction and look where it gets us? People complain that ‘this one, gets a bus pass’ and ‘that one gets a heating allowance’, blah, blah, blah.

People are consumed with the fact that David Cameron’s mum gets a bus pass, for fucks sake.

Jim @ 20:

“The people who drew up the initial contract were far from idiots. They knew exactly what they are doing. This contract was set up by Labour to delibertly drive the disabled into poverty.”

And why would they want to do that, exactly?

25. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

“Er, I am not sure how you can be right about that?”

Maybe if you explain what your objection is to what I said, I can help you.

“Surely the job of an investigator is to investigate crime? If no crime has been committed then there is an incentive to falsify evidence.”

Which is why I said that incentives have to be set up carefully to make sure that people are doing what you actually want them to do.

Chaise @ 25

Okay, here we go. This all comes along because Pagar does not accept the 0.5 percent of benefit claims that are proved to be fraudulent is any indicator of anything significant. He claims ( #13) that the DWP, itself have no incentive to investigate alleged fraud cases because as he sees it, it would somehow prove the DWP is doing something wrong.

Now, he has provided no evidence for this nor has he shown any knowledge of the working practices of the staff of the DWP with regard to they investigate fraud.
He appears to start of with the premise that the low detection rate is down to the reluctance of the staff to investigate these allegations and/or an institutional bias against investigation within the ranks of the DWP itself.

Needless to say, he has offered no real evidence for either of these allegations. The ‘best’ he has managed so far and to be blunt the ‘best’ evidence we are likely to see from him is the fact that because Atos have redefined the tests in order that more people can pass the fitness to work test, that automatically means that the original claims were fraudulent. Pagar has openly admitted that he is unaware that medical evidence is used during these assessments, prior to the Atos assessments.:

(#9) If I tell you I can’t walk because of the tremendous pain in my back, you pretty much have to take my word for it (until you can find a video of me playing football).

Nor has he explained how Sue had managed to fake thirty tumours in her stomach.

So given the above, how do you produce a system that can create incentives to find fraud, if there is not or little fraud in the system? What are the investigators doing wrong that a bonus scheme is going to improve?

Chaise @ 25

Okay, here we go. This all comes along because Pagar does not accept the 0.5 percent of benefit claims that are proved to be fraudulent is any indicator of anything significant. He claims ( #13) that the DWP, itself have no incentive to investigate alleged fraud cases because as he sees it, it would somehow prove the DWP is doing something wrong.

Now, he has provided no evidence for this nor has he shown any knowledge of the working practices of the staff of the DWP with regard to they investigate fraud.
He appears to start of with the premise that the low detection rate is down to the reluctance of the staff to investigate these allegations and/or an institutional bias against investigation within the ranks of the DWP itself.

Needless to say, he has offered no real evidence for either of these allegations. The ‘best’ he has managed so far and to be blunt the ‘best’ evidence we are likely to see from him is the fact that because Atos have redefined the tests in order that more people can pass the fitness to work test, that automatically means that the original claims were fraudulent. Pagar has openly admitted that he is unaware that medical evidence is used during these assessments, prior to the Atos assessments.:

(#9) If I tell you I can’t walk because of the tremendous pain in my back, you pretty much have to take my word for it (until you can find a video of me playing football).

Nor has he explained how Sue had managed to fake thirty tumours in her stomach.

So given the above, how do you produce a system that can create incentives to find fraud, if there is no or little fraud in the system? What are the investigators doing wrong that a bonus scheme is going to improve?

28. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

I’m not arguing with most of your post, because I don’t know who to trust out of the DWP and ATOS, and frankly I’m far more suspicious of ATOS. I only got involved because you seemed to be saying that commissions don’t encourage people to hit the targets you give them. Which they really, really do. Often with unlooked-for and unfortunate side effects. If you think customer service has gone downhill at your bank, utility provider etc recently, that’s probably why.

“So given the above, how do you produce a system that can create incentives to find fraud, if there is not or little fraud in the system? What are the investigators doing wrong that a bonus scheme is going to improve?”

This is a good question, though. Certainly you don’t want to start paying them for each fraudulent case found – that’ll just lead to massaged figures and people being stitched up, unless you’re very clever about how you set up the system.

I’d try paying for each fraudulent case investigated/resolved, if that’s possible. Obviously you’d have to make sure that this meant they’d actually looked into it instead of just stamping “resolved” on a file and getting paid for it. Try that for a year; if you don’t find any major change in the stats, abandon the project.

This all comes along because Pagar does not accept the 0.5 percent of benefit claims that are proved to be fraudulent is any indicator of anything significant.

The police intercept £20m worth of drugs coming into the country every year.

So, we can happily conclude that no drugs are being consumed because the police have intercepted them all.

That’s right isn’t it, Jim?

30. tigerdarwin

Bojo is one of the more socially conscious Tories so it is no surprise.

Don’t the Tories love it though picking on the vulnerable while spinning that they are being equally hard on their banker buddies.

Nasty party, nasty people, nasty policies dressed up in sugar spin.

@29 If only 0.5% of police investigations into drugs claims turned out to be genuine cases, you might have a point.

Pagar @ 29

What on Earth are you talking about, that is the worse analogy I have ever read on this board.

We are able to get estimates on how many drug users and how many pushers there are out there. We have a rough idea how much drugs come into the Country. Everyone accepts that the police only ever manage to intercept a small percentage of the drugs imported into the Country.

If we doubled the number of surveillance operations we would capture more drugs because, believe it or not, 99% of all drug surveillance operations don’t draw a blank. The police do not pitch up at someone’s house at random in the hope that sixty kilos of smack gets delivered that very day.

The rather obvious point about Incapacity Benefit is that it an enclosed system. We have the names and addresses of every claimant of file, the names of their GP, their bank details. We do not need undercover cops to go out and find them, they are known to us. Despite all this information, we find very little fraud of the people that we actually check. Yet when we increase the numbers of investigators the fraud tends to remain pretty low. In fact, one in a hundred cases ends up with conviction.

Does that mean that we are 100% successful in catching every case? No, I doubt it, does a capture rate of one in two hundred suggest the system is rife with fraud? Nope, if it was the thirty or forty percent or whatever, I suspect that the detection rate would be a lot higher.

I wonder how this detection rate compares to the number of drink drivers breath tested or speeders trapped by speed cameras.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why Boris is right about this http://t.co/Q1aFYWtf

  2. Christian Carrillo

    Why Boris is right about this | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CK2OunTi via @libcon

  3. Fiona Collie

    Why Boris is right about this | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/X7eUMqI7 via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.