BENEFIT CHEATS - REPORTING BENEFIT FRAUD

Non-Indigenous Peers caught with their hands in the till.

Lord Paul, Baroness Udin and Lord Bhatia.
Two Labour Peers and a Cross-bencher (will support any party that can make him money)
What do you expect from people who have no native ties to the country that, though unlawful, were given positions of power over the Indigenous Population ?

"Baroness Uddin, a Labour peer and the first Muslim woman to be appointed to the upper house, is set to be suspended from the Lords for between a year and 18 months, and has agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses.

Lord Paul, another Labour peer and a major party donor, has been recommended for a suspension of between four and six months and has agreed to pay back £40,000.

Lord Bhatia, who sits as a cross-bencher but has also donated money to Labour, faces a ban of between six and 12 months and is to repay voluntarily £27,000."

So it's not surprising they were stealing from us, they would still be theiving from us now except they were caught.

Read the full article here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8068821/Expenses-scandal-three-face-suspension-from-House-of-Lords.html

and then think of this - "I, A.B., . And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God." 1689 English Bill Of Rights

Why do you think that our forfathers drafted and passed into Law OUR RIGHTS ?

These are OUR RIGHTS, they cannot take them away nor deny us them, though they are trying to.

We are being ruled by a bunch of Traitors, Gangsters, Thieves and Perverts, they are all at it and it's about time Britain said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

----------------------------------

"Benefit fraud cost the country around £900 million in 2008-09. If you think someone is committing benefit fraud, find out how you can report them and stop them taking money from the people who need it most."

What is benefit fraud?

Benefit fraud is when someone is dishonest in order to receive benefit or knowingly fails to report a change in their circumstances. This includes people who:

• do not report they are now living with a partner or that their partner has started work
  
• do not report they are receiving other benefits
  
• do not declare their savings or do not declare the right amount of savings
  
• are claiming for children who have left home
  
• do not report they have started work, or started to earn money
  
• do not report they have inherited money
• do not report they are going abroad, living abroad, or have changed address

How you can report benefit fraud

There are three ways you can report benefit fraud:
Online

Complete an online form on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website.


By telephone

Call the National Benefit Fraud Hotline (NFBH) on 0800 854 440. Lines are open between 7.00 am and 11.00 pm, seven days a week. It is free and confidential.

If you have speech or hearing problems you can use a text phone service on 0800 328 0512.

The Welsh National Benefit Fraud Hotline on 0800 6783722 is open from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday (an out-of-hours messaging service operates from 7.00 am to 8.00 am and 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm weekdays and from 7.00 am to 11.00 pm at weekends).
By post

If you would prefer to make your report in writing, you can send information to:

NBFH, PO Box 224, Preston, PR1 1GP

All reports of benefit fraud are treated in the strictest confidence.
You can make an anonymous report

Whether you use the online reporting form, call the hotline, or write a letter, you can choose not to give your contact details if you prefer.

It helps if you do provide your details because DWP can get back to you with any questions if this is necessary.

What information to provide

The law says that there has to be a good reason for investigating someone for benefit fraud - so you will need to give as much of the following information as possible:

• the name and address of the person you are reporting and their partner, if they have one
• a description of the person
• the type of benefit theft you think they are committing and why you suspect them
• information about their employer, if you think they are working
• information about their vehicle, if they have one

What happens after you report someone

The Fraud Investigation Service will look at the information you give. If you have given enough information, they will check the person's benefit claim.

The investigation might take some time, and the Fraud Investigation Service aren't allowed to tell you the outcome.

Sometimes no action is taken. It might be that the person has declared the change in their circumstances and their benefit is not affected by it.

The Fraud Investigation Service will only take action if they find the person has been committing benefit fraud. Action can include removing a person's benefits and taking them to court.

Find out more about the Department for Work and Pensions ‘Targeting benefit thieves’ campaign by using the link below.

------------------------------

It's different when those in real need try and get a little more out of the Benefits System , the Law comes down like a ton of bricks, but when those in positions of power abuse their positions for massive financial gain nothing happens. it's ok for them to just pay the money back and go on an extended fully paid holiday until the proles forget.

GET THEM ALL IN COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO FIND THEM GUILTY AND THEN A MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 5 YRS, AND IN A REAL PRISON RATHER THAN THE HOLIDAY CAMPS THAT ARE BUILT TO IMPRISON (HOUSE) THE WEALTHY OR THOSE WHO LORD IT OVER US.

THE TRIAL OF GEERT WILDERS

We've all heard of what's happening to Geert Wilders. We all know that the prosecutor has recommended that all charges be dropped. You'd think that would be the end of it in a sane judicial system? Seems the Dutch system may not be entirely sane. Read on ...

Dutch prosecutors are asking judges to acquit anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders of all charges of inciting hate and discrimination against Muslims.

The move by prosecutors signals their belief the case against Wilders is weak, but judges could still disagree and convict him. The trial continues next week. 

Prosecutor Paul Velleman told the court Friday that most of Wilders' remarks -- which include comparing Islam with Naziism -- appear to target Islam as an ideology, not single out Muslims for abuse.

Prosecutors initially declined to press charges, but were ordered to do so by an appeals court that ruled there was significant evidence against the influential politician.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1721&Itemid=1

For an explanation read this ...
All eyes are on the war on free speech, the one that Dutch powers-that-be are waging inside an Amsterdam courtroom. That's where Geert Wilders is standing trial for his increasingly popular political platform, based on his analysis of the anti-Western laws and principles of Islam, that rejects the Islamization of the Netherlands.
But don't stop there. There's much more to see in the trial of Wilders, whose Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) is the silent partner in the Netherlands' brand new center-right coalition government. That camel in the courtroom is the tip off.
SYou haven't noticed it? I've been watching it since last year, when sometime after Dutch prosecutors announced in January 2009 that Wilders would go to trial for "insulting" Muslims and "inciting" hatred against them, Stephen Coughlin, famous in national security circles in Washington for his airtight and exhaustive briefs on jihad, clued me in to his analysis of the Wilders trial to date.
What we know now we knew then: that this trial presented a watershed moment. Wilders, leader of a growing democratic movement to save his Western nation from Islamization, risks one year in prison for speaking out about the facts and consequences of Islamization. Such speech is prohibited not by the Western tradition of free speech Wilders upholds, but rather by the Islamic laws against free speech that he rejects. Wilders' plight demonstrates the extent to which the West has already been Islamized.
"It is irrelevant whether Wilder's witnesses might prove Wilders' observations to be correct," the public prosecutor stated back at the beginning. "What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." Since when are observations "illegal"? Under communist dictatorships is one answer. Under Sharia is another.
Writing in Wilders' defense in the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Dutch parliamentarian, reported that Dutch multiculturalist parliamentarians, "spooked" by Wilders rising political star, modified the Dutch penal code in the fall of 2009 to fit Wilders' alleged crimes. They crafted what Hirsi Ali went on to call "the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and E.U." when trying to criminalize defamation (criticism) of religion (Islam).
This is a crucial point to understand, and one that takes me back to what Stephen Coughlin posited last year. Everywhere the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) goes, it peddles Islamic law. In effect, then, to build on Hirsi Ali's point, the Dutch modified their laws to conform with Islam's. This gibes precisely with how Coughlin saw the trial from the start: as an attempt to apply Islamic law, as advanced by the OIC, in the Netherlands.
The OIC is an international body guided by policy set by the kings and heads of state of 57 Islamic countries in accordance with Islamic law. Such law permeates OIC activities, which are shaped by the Sharia-based Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The OIC relies on the Cairo Declaration as its "frame of reference and the basis ... regarding issues related to human rights." (These include free speech rights as restricted by Sharia.) The organization's 57 foreign ministers meet annually, as the OIC's website explains, to "consider the means for the implementation" of OIC policy. As Coughlin puts it, these are "real state actors using real state power to further real state objectives." Sharia objectives.
Topping the OIC wish list is its effort to crhttp://www.wildersontrial.com/administrator/index.php?option=com_content&task=addiminalize criticism of Islam in the non-Muslim world. And this is what makes the Wilders case is so significant. It's one thing if Islamic street thugs mount assassination attempts in Western nations against violators of Islamic law (i.e., elderly Danish cartoonists), or Muslim ambassadors to Western nations lobby them to punish such violations (the free press), or OIC representatives introduce similar Sharia resolutions at the United Nations. It would be something else again if a Western government were itself to convict a democratically elected leader for violating the Sharia ban on criticizing Islam. That's not war anymore; that's conquest.
In this context, Wilders' trial was never a straight judicial process; it was a political battle from the start, a proving ground for Sharia in the West, dovetailing with the OIC's "10 year Plan," which includes a global campaign against so-called Islamophobia. It remains a test of the tolerance of Dutch elites -- tolerance for the truth -- and their openness to the intolerance of Sharia.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1717&Itemid=1

Here's what a Dutch commenter has to say about it:

Dutch blogger "Snouck Hurgronje" explains the (to those of us in the Anglosphere) bizarre Dutch court system. Snouck writes:

The prosecution's task was to gather the complaints of the 40 plaintiffs and bring a suit against Wilders, arrange all the documentation and such, and register the case with the judges. They did not want to do so. They always wanted to drop the case, even before it had become a case. The prosecutors can decide not to take up a case when its is brought by a plaintiff. This is called "seponeren." The Amsterdam prosecutors had to be ordered by the judges to bring the case at all. So the judges may still punish Wilders, they certainly want to do so. Whether they have enough spine is another question.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017614.html#oct16

A commenter on the Klein Verzet blog has noted in passing that Amsterdam zoo has reported that several kangaroos are missing ... anyone got any idea where they might be found?

Clue:

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2010/10/wilders-trial-day-5.html

Has anyone else noticed a distinct lack of this story in the British (English,Welsh, Scottish and Irish - not those passport-only people who CALL themselves British) media? Been anything on the Beeb (I don't have a telly)? ... despite it being of enormous importance to all of us here and the rest of the EU?

About time we announced our independence from that sorry sack of s**t.

Morg
.

WHAT EVER HAS HAPPENED TO RABAR HAMAD ?

I was only the other day wondering just what had ever happened to Rabar Hamad the Iraqi asylum seeker (sic) who was originally living and studying in Wigan and who had convincingly (to some) claimed to be only 14 years old - but, who was found to be actually 20 years of age and who was to be quite rightly deported back to his native Iraq! As he had absolutely no right whatsoever to be in this country, never mind in Wigan at a cost to the local taxpayers of £4,000 per week:

Some of Rabar's "the moon is made of green cheese" rabble outside Wigan Town Hall
(Has the young chappy on the end got Sideshow Bob shoe's on - or what?)

So, I was very suspicious to say the least that nothing had been reported in the media for some time on the case of man-boy Rabar after the totally inept authorities and Border Agency had issued an arrest warrant for Rabar after he'd slipped their net and fled into the wilderness of Fran McCaul's outside toilet.

Fran who? - You ask:

Fran McCaul is one those local and typically frustrated, hypocritical, apologetic middle class peace loving raging monsters and rabid left wing lunatics (a bit like a lighter skinned version of the racist Diane Abbot MP) who unfortunately like many others of her ilk have managed to infest our educational system and imprint their sickening Marxist agenda upon on our poor children. She's also at the helm here Wigan and Leigh United Against Racism - WALUAR ( I see "Kickout Wiganpatriot" is a friend of theirs who in turn is a buddy of the violence organiser 'commie' Stephen Hall).
Anyway, Just take a look at this gem below by Fran McCaul from a couple of years back on the issue of racism in Wigan & Leigh:

Student Driven Out by Racism

Quote:

Fran McCaul from Wigan and Leigh United Against Racism said she was deeply saddened and disappointed by Mr Sanneh's experiences, but not entirely surprised.

She said: "Wigan has for so long been almost exclusively white, so a non-white face still stands out.

"Because they are unaccustomed to non-white people and see only the skin difference, some people have developed entrenched and totally unjustifiable prejudices.

"To some people racism is normalised. It hasn't been challenged for a long time because there have been few potential victims to vent it against. Now it has been in shocking and abhorrent incidents such as those experienced by Mr Sanneh.

"I am terribly sorry he has left Wigan with this impression of the place.

"We need to live in a more integrated society for this kind of prejudice to be driven out."

You may also want to check this other piece taken from a couple or so years back: - Man Labels Wigan Most Racist Place In Britain

Doesn't it just make you feel so, so damn guilty??

(I, digress) But, then it comes to light and I do find that Rabar has indeed been caught and arrested after absconding so, now he will most surely be deported back to Iraq and those that had aided and abetted the illegal immigrant must also face prosecution as the definite threat from the Border Agency suggested here? (Last paragraph.)

Well, not exactly - RABAR is still here and unfortunately at a further huge expense to the browbeaten taxpayers:

Campaign update: 13 September 2010 - great news! (sic)

Rabar Hamad and his supporters were overjoyed to have confirmation in court of what was obvious to everyone except Wigan Council: that he is a vulnerable child in need of support and protection.

"Rabar is nearly home. Soon we hope, folks, soon. Thank you for everyone’s support. The Refugee Council has played a key role in Rabar’s case, advocating for him. It has been a difficult road, and it isn’t over. As most of you know many other children in the system are wrongly detained and deported. The Refugee Council are doing everything they can to stop this."

You may keep up with the adventures of Rabar Hamad and his taking the piss tomfoolery here at his chums Facebook page.

They are a little coy about releasing too much information as this comment from their Facebook page creator Sally Hyman suggests:

Sally Hyman We fully understand that Rabar's supporters are concerned about his welfare and want to be kept informed. However, although your support has been vital and very much appreciated, we have been instructed by his legal team to not release anything.
He was released from detention on 27th August and his case has yet to be re...viewed. We are able to inform you that, although Rabar wants to return to Oldham, he has not been allowed to and is currently residing elsewhere.
As soon as we are able to inform you of any developments, we will do.

Dont Deport 16 Year Old Rabar Hamad on Facebook: