this post was submitted on 04 May 2025

225 points (97.9% liked)

World News

46344 readers

3308 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

225

Mother of autistic boy left with £10,000 debt after breaching DWP rules by £1.92 a week (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was three weeks after Christmas when the bombshell letter arrived. Guy Shahar and his wife, Oksana, looked at each other in stunned disbelief.

They had followed the Guardian’s investigation into the carer’s allowance scandal that has left thousands of families with crippling debts and criminal records. Not once did they think they would join them.

“Important,” it read in big bold type. “You have been paid more carer’s allowance than you are entitled to. You now need to pay this money back”.

In some weeks, she was paid just 38p more than the threshold – but for that tiny infraction she is being forced to repay £64.60 each time, the rate of carer’s allowance at the time.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ton@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Why are Anglo-Saxon 'conservative' governments hell-bent on punishing the poor to the fullest extent. They no longer hide the strategy that cruelty is the point! And the general public seems to like it, and votes for it in ever greater numbers, until it happens to themselves, of course.

Can someone explain this to a person who grew up in a Rhineland model based society that is now fast adopting the Anglo Saxon model (the Netherlands).

[–] notoftenthat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Perhaps, Monty Python has some insights?

[–] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 5 hours ago

If they take money from poor people, they can give tax breaks to the rich and still break even.

[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 106 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

a breach of even 1p would trigger a fine of £83.30

Sounds extremely, extremely stupid. A breach of 1p should trigger repayment of 1p.

Also, a person should be notified at once, at the latest next month.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 19 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Also, why does the system even allow people to claim more than they are entitled? Is there no maximum set into the payment field or whatever they have for it?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 45 minutes ago

If it's anything like unemployment insurance claims, you could possibly be entitled to different amounts every week depending on whether you made income. But it's odd that it lets you get more than the max.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

In my experience, it's either total incompetence of the people in charge, or it's malicious in order to "catch" people doing something bad.

Like a bait car, but way more malicious since the person getting in the metaphorical car doesn't even know it's not their car because the keys worked, and nobody bothers stopping them for a few days so they get extra criminal charges.

[+] nogooduser@lemmy.world -32 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

If the punishment for deliberately claiming more in benefits than you’re entitled to is simply to repay the benefits then there’s no incentive to not do it. If you get caught then you’re no worse off than if you’d not broken the law so why not do it?

Having said that, if the punishment for accidentally claiming more than you’re entitled to is so harsh then that is unfair.

I’d imagine that the process for both of the scenarios is the same but it definitely should have some human element in it where intent is taken into account.

The system should protect people from that by having proper checks before the money is paid out.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 48 points 8 hours ago

I’m not a lawyer or barrister, but there are already laws against fraud, which is what you are describing. There’s a huge difference between deliberately over claiming and making a mistake, and what the article is describing is at worst honest mistakes.

[–] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 5 hours ago

If the punishment for deliberately claiming more in benefits than you’re entitled to is simply to repay the benefits then there’s no incentive to not do it.

Uh, what? The incentive is not having to pay anything back by claiming the correct amount. They're poor, that's why they've applied for the benefit in the first place. They can't afford to pay stuff back.

The reason this is punitive is literally because they've chosen the amount they're able to manage and yet are hit with huge fines when they've "gotten it wrong" by small margins, some as low as 38p like in the article.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Unless your rich and break the law then the fine you a small amount relatively speaking and you made more by breaking the law.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 2 points 5 hours ago

A 7 million fine for stealing 1 billion in profits.

Just another day in late stage capitalism.

Of course someone usually has to go to jail for something so public, so Steve from accounting is getting his "jailbird bonus" and will be admitting to fraud, and spend 4 months in a ~~hotel~~ cushioned cell. He also gets weekends off.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 7 points 6 hours ago

Can they do the same with rich people and corporations? Error in subsidies, pay back 100 times the amount for the infraction. Now they often get a relatively small fine.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 59 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Starmer is working hard to force the working poor into bankruptcy.

Wtf is happening in the UK???

[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 39 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The same report released in May found the DWP had known since 2021 that overpayment of Carer's Allowance has left some people in financial difficulty.

Remind me when were last general elections again? Another conservative mine they left hanging about by sweeping it under the rug.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20jln81w72o

Not a fan of labour but please give credit where its due, as to which government did nothing first.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The government currently in power is fully responsible as they could stop it entirely, they choose not to and are complicit.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

"Fully responsible" huh? Like on day 1, or is there some sort of grace period? How long does a gov have to review all historic legislation? Is your timeframe based on empiric evidence or hopes and dreams? Why aren't the individuals who wrote and passed it "fully responsible"? Or does their culpability end the moment they vacate office?

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Last I checked the current UK Government have been in for nearly a year.

They would have been aware of this legislation when it passed as it’s not like the politicians are born on election day.

A current majority government is always responsible for how the government is running.

[–] Yermaw@lemm.ee 6 points 9 hours ago

Bureaucracy moves pretty slowly i think. We've got another few years to find out for sure.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 points 7 hours ago

The UK is absolutely cooked if a return to Blairism is the best they can come up with.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 14 points 10 hours ago

This smells of "thanks Obama" lol

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 6 hours ago

this is your government doing this??