The Newsshoper reports a 36 year old Sydenham woman has been ordered to pay back more than £6,000 in council tax and housing benefit fraud.
Petronilla Agu of Chulsa Road was also given a 12 month conditional discharge at Bromley Magistrates' Court on June 25. They described it as "a blatant case of fraud". Full story here: http://tinyurl.com/6ct7cg
This is stealing from our own community and those most in need. Do you think it right that people from our own community who so blantantly cheat us should be named and shamed in this way? Or is it a bit DailyMailish? Your views appreciated.
Admin
Name & Shame?
Shame is often a powerful weapon. Whether or not she actually feels ashamed is another matter.
Someone who steals from teh public purse steals from us all.
I believe in financially punitive penalties for all crimes. If someone smashes a window they should be made to pay the cost of the window & the cost of bringing them to justice. If they cannot pay then they should be forced to work, at minimum wage, until their debt is settled.
Someone who steals from teh public purse steals from us all.
I believe in financially punitive penalties for all crimes. If someone smashes a window they should be made to pay the cost of the window & the cost of bringing them to justice. If they cannot pay then they should be forced to work, at minimum wage, until their debt is settled.
I think if you name and shame those found guilty of benefit fraud and council tax fraud then you should also name and shame those found guilty of tax fraud - which never seems to attract the same level of public outrage and (at risk of generalisation) seems to be more of a white collar crime (so perhaps more frequent in Dulwich or Beckenham than in a Sydenham council estate).
oh absolutely - tax evasion is often a far more damaging crime.Thomas wrote:I think if you name and shame those found guilty of benefit fraud and council tax fraud then you should also name and shame those found guilty of tax fraud - which never seems to attract the same level of public outrage and (at risk of generalisation) seems to be more of a white collar crime (so perhaps more frequent in Dulwich or Beckenham than in a Sydenham council estate).
We do: http://www.sydenham.org.uk/news_vat_fraud.htmlThomas wrote:I think if you name and shame those found guilty of benefit fraud and council tax fraud then you should also name and shame those found guilty of tax fraud .
Admin
The issue you raise Thomas is valid. I can only report the cases I discover. The white collar fraud may neither come to court or to a court too far away and too complicated to be reported. Name & Shame is always going to be skewed to the 'easy' local cases.
However, should we use that as a reason not to report those we know of? 6 grand stolen in a single year is far from petty thieving in my book.
Admin
However, should we use that as a reason not to report those we know of? 6 grand stolen in a single year is far from petty thieving in my book.
Admin
why was she only ordered to pay £100 in costs? - surely the costs of bringing her to justice were more than this....
the punishment only seems to be a conditional discharge. The £6000 is just what she is paying back.
If she can't afford to pay more then she should pay proper costs - plus interest - in installments over a number of years.
the punishment only seems to be a conditional discharge. The £6000 is just what she is paying back.
If she can't afford to pay more then she should pay proper costs - plus interest - in installments over a number of years.
I don't particularly agree with naming and shaming cases which have already gone to court and been judged. Our system of justice is that transgressors are dealt with by the courts according to law, not by some equivalent of putting people in stocks in the market square if you see what I mean.
On a different note, I'm not sure what would it achieve, given it's already been reported in the local paper?
On a different note, I'm not sure what would it achieve, given it's already been reported in the local paper?
one of the principles of justice is that it is done in public so that we can see that it is done fairly without fear or favour and that the law is seen to be honoured and upheld.mosy wrote:I don't particularly agree with naming and shaming cases which have already gone to court and been judged. Our system of justice is that transgressors are dealt with by the courts according to law, not by some equivalent of putting people in stocks in the market square if you see what I mean.
On a different note, I'm not sure what would it achieve, given it's already been reported in the local paper?
For justice to be open then the names of those found guilty must be made public. What I do object to is releasing the names of people before they are found guilty. That only leads to "trial by media".
-
catscratch
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 13 Jul 2008 12:44
- Location: se20
For years The South London Press would sell its paper locally with a placard outside the newagents nearest such events saying something like;
"Lawrie Park man found guilty"
"Newlands Park woman on indecency charge"
"Local Historian found abroad and at large apparently of unsound mind"
This would encourage the local gossips to buy the paper to see which resident was in quod that week.
And possibly heave a sigh of relief that it wasn't one of their family this week.
"Lawrie Park man found guilty"
"Newlands Park woman on indecency charge"
"Local Historian found abroad and at large apparently of unsound mind"
This would encourage the local gossips to buy the paper to see which resident was in quod that week.
And possibly heave a sigh of relief that it wasn't one of their family this week.
I'm sorry, I thought the original question was whether they should be further named and shamed on here, given that later posts by Admin suggested that identified frauds sometimes were or would be, by my reading.
If speaking about principle, then I do agree with court reporting (after adjudged). I see this more, these days, beneficial, re sentences meted out rather than anything to do with particular individuals. New laws seem to be created "by the day" "in our name" (or supposedly for our good) and apparently are passed by people appointed to represent hoi poloi (notwithstanding the House of Lords somewhat toothless input).
I think we populace are entitled to know "what's going on" in that sense. There could hardly be public outcries that might help the law be aligned to the views of common people without awareness, given that our laws are set according to current perception and will, rather than set in stone as biblical laws seemingly are.
A bit philosophical as the creation of laws is rather a wide subject...
If speaking about principle, then I do agree with court reporting (after adjudged). I see this more, these days, beneficial, re sentences meted out rather than anything to do with particular individuals. New laws seem to be created "by the day" "in our name" (or supposedly for our good) and apparently are passed by people appointed to represent hoi poloi (notwithstanding the House of Lords somewhat toothless input).
I think we populace are entitled to know "what's going on" in that sense. There could hardly be public outcries that might help the law be aligned to the views of common people without awareness, given that our laws are set according to current perception and will, rather than set in stone as biblical laws seemingly are.
A bit philosophical as the creation of laws is rather a wide subject...
name and shame
The defence of press reporting of things like this is that "justice is done and seen to be done".
As we don't get the Shopper delivered to our house and I don't buy the SLP because it covers too wide an area, I rarely see justice being done locally, if you see what I mean. So if somone can alert us via the forum than I am happy with that.
As we don't get the Shopper delivered to our house and I don't buy the SLP because it covers too wide an area, I rarely see justice being done locally, if you see what I mean. So if somone can alert us via the forum than I am happy with that.
name and shame!
Can I take up Mosy's point and my concern about who might be N&Sed for what. The two cases I have pointed out in this thread are frauds of different magnitudes. But they are frauds on us as a society - the taxpayers and people in need who would otherwise benefit from the tax.
Now if a young lad mugs another young lad for a mobile - the victim is apparent, knows who the culprit was after judgement and if he feels the sentence too lenient can start pestering Jim Dowd or whoever to do something about it.
And I'm not too sure naming that culprit would be a good idea. It may only elevate his status as the 'hard man' is his gang.
Tax fraud, I fear is seen as a victimless crime. But it is us. We don't see the culprit in court. No chance to show our disgust. Thomas & Bensonby may be right that the judges and magistrates may be more lenient because they can't see the victim explicitly either.
So you see the problem. Naming & Shaming is not a universal panacea. Should I use in cases of 'crimes against the community' but not 'crimes against the person'? There is also the consideration that the fewer one names the more impact it might have. A long list of petty offenders from last week's magistrate's court is not going to be a good read. And it might just add to the feeling that there is more crime about than there actually is.
And should I retain the editorial right to select the N&S (while I trust 99% of you - there is the 1% who might use it as part of a personal vendetta)?
Please continue to comment. What you have written so far is very helpful.
Admin
Now if a young lad mugs another young lad for a mobile - the victim is apparent, knows who the culprit was after judgement and if he feels the sentence too lenient can start pestering Jim Dowd or whoever to do something about it.
And I'm not too sure naming that culprit would be a good idea. It may only elevate his status as the 'hard man' is his gang.
Tax fraud, I fear is seen as a victimless crime. But it is us. We don't see the culprit in court. No chance to show our disgust. Thomas & Bensonby may be right that the judges and magistrates may be more lenient because they can't see the victim explicitly either.
So you see the problem. Naming & Shaming is not a universal panacea. Should I use in cases of 'crimes against the community' but not 'crimes against the person'? There is also the consideration that the fewer one names the more impact it might have. A long list of petty offenders from last week's magistrate's court is not going to be a good read. And it might just add to the feeling that there is more crime about than there actually is.
And should I retain the editorial right to select the N&S (while I trust 99% of you - there is the 1% who might use it as part of a personal vendetta)?
Please continue to comment. What you have written so far is very helpful.
Admin
If I were a forum owner who was responsible for any libellous statements, including those of general posters, then naming and shaming is something I'd want to leave alone. This because I'm not sufficiently up on libel laws (except that repeating a libel makes one as guilty as the person who originally made it, so if a news report turned out to be wrong, then Ooops!)
Also I wouldn't want to have to pre-moderate all posts 24/7 "just in case", which could be necessary given the intention of naming and shaming would be to invoke and express displeasure. This is a little more than conjecture as a miscellaneous comment on another forum gave the proprietor a lot of sleepless nights from threats to close it down and claim damages/costs of course.
Also, once something is on the Net, it's there for good. Admin, the house referred to in the link you show in this thread might now belong to others as that case appears to have been some three years ago. Is that fair?
I'd certainly agree that significant tax evasion cases are rarely brought to court despite millions more being spent trying to build a case that a judge would have even half a chance of understanding, especially when competent defence lawyers will be doing their utmost to confuse the issue; therefore even in tax cases, it would surely be a local chap working for cash in hand...
Even £6,000 is peanuts if you look at the grand scheme of things, like the billions spent to recover only millions from indivdual people. Surely such misuse of public tax dollars by the authorities is at best questionable. As equally is government or local government incompetence. There are many motorists who'd be happy to wave a stick at some councils re parking and camera fines and regulations which some would say constitute fraudulently obtaining money from "us".
Granted, the above aren't restricted to Sydenham. Looked at that way, if you were to assess how many local incidents in, say, the last six months would be worthy of reporting on here, you would know the number better than I. (That's intended as food for thought rather than being a question incidentally.)
Think I'll go back to sleep now and look forward to reading any comments from you, Admin, or others when I wake up
Also I wouldn't want to have to pre-moderate all posts 24/7 "just in case", which could be necessary given the intention of naming and shaming would be to invoke and express displeasure. This is a little more than conjecture as a miscellaneous comment on another forum gave the proprietor a lot of sleepless nights from threats to close it down and claim damages/costs of course.
Also, once something is on the Net, it's there for good. Admin, the house referred to in the link you show in this thread might now belong to others as that case appears to have been some three years ago. Is that fair?
I'd certainly agree that significant tax evasion cases are rarely brought to court despite millions more being spent trying to build a case that a judge would have even half a chance of understanding, especially when competent defence lawyers will be doing their utmost to confuse the issue; therefore even in tax cases, it would surely be a local chap working for cash in hand...
Even £6,000 is peanuts if you look at the grand scheme of things, like the billions spent to recover only millions from indivdual people. Surely such misuse of public tax dollars by the authorities is at best questionable. As equally is government or local government incompetence. There are many motorists who'd be happy to wave a stick at some councils re parking and camera fines and regulations which some would say constitute fraudulently obtaining money from "us".
Granted, the above aren't restricted to Sydenham. Looked at that way, if you were to assess how many local incidents in, say, the last six months would be worthy of reporting on here, you would know the number better than I. (That's intended as food for thought rather than being a question incidentally.)
Think I'll go back to sleep now and look forward to reading any comments from you, Admin, or others when I wake up
"A long list of petty offenders from last week's magistrate's court is not going to be a good read. And it might just add to the feeling that there is more crime about than there actually is."
Thing is Admin, if the crime got to a magistrates court then your last line is meaningless because the crime happened.
I think what i would like to see is the cases such as benefit fraudsters,being named and shamed, from the incapacity fraud - housing benefit fraud etc, because they are the ones that make me feel like i'm being slapped in the face.
The other types of fraud are perhaps not quite so prevelent but are still eventually taking money from me because prices go up to compensate for the theft.
but this type of crime somehow doesnt make me feel so mad, probably because its usually by someone in a big institution who is faceless.
where as the benefit fraud could be someone next door.
crazy! i know but thats how i feel personally.
Thing is Admin, if the crime got to a magistrates court then your last line is meaningless because the crime happened.
I think what i would like to see is the cases such as benefit fraudsters,being named and shamed, from the incapacity fraud - housing benefit fraud etc, because they are the ones that make me feel like i'm being slapped in the face.
The other types of fraud are perhaps not quite so prevelent but are still eventually taking money from me because prices go up to compensate for the theft.
but this type of crime somehow doesnt make me feel so mad, probably because its usually by someone in a big institution who is faceless.
where as the benefit fraud could be someone next door.
crazy! i know but thats how i feel personally.
only if there is a conviction :Annie wrote:"Thing is Admin, if the crime got to a magistrates court then your last line is meaningless because the crime happened.
re. libel - then if you merely report what someone else has said then I dont think you can be prosecuted for it.
For example, if you were to say "The news shopper claims Mr X was a fruadster" (and the NS actually said that) then you couldn't comit libel.