More PS-BS on Prime Time Tonight...

oceanclub · 07-12-2009 11:49pm

Personally, I'd rather see a Primetime special entitled "Let's Hunt and Kill Seanie Fitzpatrick Pour Encourager Les Autres".

P.

ParkRunner · 07-12-2009 11:49pm

Incredible that a social welfare fraud expose is twisted into another PS bashing thread. No doubt there are cracks in the system but there is an increasing sophistication out there in identity fraud and no sense of shame in some people. They all knew exactly what they were doing and we are all paying for it.

boodlesdoodles · 07-12-2009 11:58pm

I can't believe a programme about defrauding the social welfare system has been turned into yet another thread about bashing the public sector. Its not the workers in the Social welfare offices fault that fraud is so easy, blame the legislation and EU rules.

Really the mods should shut this thread down as its only going over already well trodden ground in other threads.

westtip · 07-12-2009 11:58pm

I reckon what they should do is introduce a bounty hunter scheme for social welfare scammers/fraudsters

If you snitch on a social welfare defrauder and social welfare get a kill, then 50% of what social welfare will save on the fraud for say a 6 month period or say 50% of the refund that comes back should be paid as commission to faudster bounty hunter.

woudl be a brill way of making a few quid.

dny123456 · 08-12-2009 12:00am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Ok so your 5 minutes online is better than my 6 years experience.

I'm afraid, it probably is. Nothing in the data protection act to stop a biometric being used for the purposes of identity in the collection of welfare. The key is, that the biometric (or any information) is not used for any other purpose, other than that for which it was collected for. For example. they couldn't collect your fingerprint for a social welfare system and then later use that to identify (or rule out) your involvement in a crime.

leninbenjamin · 08-12-2009 12:00am

EF wrote: »

Incredible that a social welfare fraud expose is twisted into another PS bashing thread.

to be fair though, if the fraud really is as bad as that report makes it out to be (and it no doubt is) you have to ask how have the front line staff allowed this to happen? They are the first port of call, they are the one's tasked with enforcement of policy. So then, surely it should be their job to at least bring it to the attention of those above them, instead of relying on the same journalistic exposé that we always seem to do in this country...

to give a silly little analogy; if you ran a supermarket and found your shelf stackers weren't removing the out of date products from the shelves what would you do?

gerry28 · 08-12-2009 12:06am

We need much tougher penalties for social welfare fraud. People need to be genuinely afraid of being caught.

It is incredible that yet again the public sector are getting it in the neck from some posters.

Its as much about about lax laws, government departments not even aware of the extent of the problem, society's lassie faire attitude to people abusing the system, the scumbags themselves who do it and much more i'm sure.

There is alot of money to be saved if its tackled properly so it should be as important to people as the public sector paycuts where.

boodlesdoodles · 08-12-2009 12:07am

leninbenjamin wrote: »

to be fair though, if the fraud really is as bad as that report makes it out to be (and it no doubt is) you have to ask how have the front line staff allowed this to happen? They are the first port of call, they are the one's tasked with enforcement of policy. So then, surely it should be their job to at least bring it to the attention of those above them, instead of relying on the same journalistic exposé that we always seem to do in this country...

to give a silly little analogy; if you ran a supermarket and found your shelf stackers weren't removing the out of date products from the shelves what would you do?

I think the real question is why the government have allowed it become so easy for the system to be defrauded? Also improvements in technology and ID theft have made it easy for fraud to occur. Basically you could use your analogy to blame the frontline staff at the banks for atm fraud and credit card theft.

ParkRunner · 08-12-2009 12:08am

leninbenjamin wrote: »

to be fair though, if the fraud really is as bad as that report makes it out to be (and it no doubt is) you have to ask how have the front line staff allowed this to happen? They are the first port of call, they are the one's tasked with enforcement of policy. So then, surely it should be their job to at least bring it to the attention of those above them, instead of relying on the same journalistic exposé that we always seem to do in this country...

You saw yourself how frustrated some of them were that they couldnt say a couple were cohabiting even though they clearly were. In this litigious society of ours if you dont have solid watertight evidence against someone you cant even raise an eyebrow

imme · 08-12-2009 12:14am

Darragh29 wrote: »

Yeah it is and they have people here coming on making one apology after the next as to why it is so easy to defaud the system, one being, "we make over a million payments a week"...

All the more reason to cut down on fraud!!!

making an apology? do you mean they're making a statement.
I don't get what you mean in your first post "PS worker/apologist", what do you mean?

imme · 08-12-2009 12:15am

Kristopherus wrote: »

Darragh29, do you work for the Indo, by any chance? Your attitude to the PS is very similar:eek::eek::eek:

LOL

Sand · 08-12-2009 12:18am

@masteroftherealm

Have you hands on experience with Access Control Systems?

Have you a working knowledge of the Data Protection Act?

Did you know it would take a referendum to introduce such an identity managment system in Ireland?

If your answer to the above is no then you have less experience than me in this area and should believe me when I tell you, your way way off the mark and have no practical basis to make the suggestions that you are. I am telling you from a professional point of view that the system you are proposing would have a minimum lead time of 24 months, would require legislation to be passed, would need to be put to tender, then a system be developed and trialed. It would have to be passed through the European court of Human rights as did the system in the UK. I can keep going as to why your wrong if you wish?

I love the "can-do" attitude you find in the public sector. Always looking for solutions and efficiencies, always brimming with potential and enthusiasm.

Do you have any ideas on how to solve welfare fraud? Darraghs thrown out an idea. What is yours?

masteroftherealm · 08-12-2009 12:20am

Sand wrote: »

@masteroftherealm

I love the "can-do" attitude you find in the public sector. Always looking for solutions and efficiencies, always brimming with potential and enthusiasm.

Do you have any ideas on how to solve welfare fraud? Darraghs thrown out an idea. What is yours?

Wow since when am I a PS worker? Lovely assumations you made there.
Ive never worked in the Public Sector.

Cluthching at straws much?

I am not a fraud investigator I am an IT professional, I gave my professional opinion on something that I had hands on experience in. If I was a fraud investigator Im sure Id have an answer to your second question.

Melion · 08-12-2009 12:23am

Ashamed to say my father was on the show tonight.

implausible · 08-12-2009 12:28am

Melion wrote: »

Ashamed to say my father was on the show tonight.

Really? What do you reckon then- is it the system, the lack of punishment or individual responsibility?

imme · 08-12-2009 12:29am

Sand wrote: »

@masteroftherealm

I love the "can-do" attitude you find in the public sector. Always looking for solutions and efficiencies, always brimming with potential and enthusiasm.

Do you have any ideas on how to solve welfare fraud? Darraghs thrown out an idea. What is yours?

you're obviously being facetious?
are you giving a general view on all of the PS?
Does one person's response on Boards.ie give the general response of the PS.

masteroftherealm · 08-12-2009 12:30am

One persons response whos not a PS worker even!!

Oafley Jones · 08-12-2009 12:30am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Wow since when am I a PS worker? Lovely assumations you made there.
Ive never worked in the Public Sector.

Cluthching at straws much?

I am not a fraud investigator I am an IT professional, I gave my professional opinion on something that I had hands on experience in. If I was a fraud investigator Im sure Id have an answer to your second question.

It's amazing to me the mental gymnastics some people can achieve in order to have a go at the public service. Histrionics, straw-man arguments and intellectually facile points are already well in evidence here. The public service needs radical reform, but the pettiness and the bitterness which seems to categorize the debate speaks of other deeper personnel issues for some posters. Son of two former civil servants btw.

GER12 · 08-12-2009 12:36am

The person from the Department was the Director General - one of these high ranking public servants! It was rather informative that this individual in acting in her position was yet unable to give actual statistics of fraud and error across the different welfare schemes that they operate.

I think the main message that can be drawn from the programme is that current systems and those that work within the system are not exactly qualified or effective in identifying fraud and error. The emphasis on cross border checks was raised and particularly informative was that despite the expensive use of resources in mounting these checks only 4 cases were identified.

Many of what was raised tonight was highlighted in the Dail committee on social affairs fraud and error report and the Comptroller and auditor general's report 2008. It seems to me that while people have been convicted of fraud - they are still allowed to claim benefits. In one case we had an asylum seeker who was claiming disability allowance while working in a supermarket in the swan centre - he is still claiming disability allowance. Another case involved jobseekers. The ease at which the Department issues second PPS numbers and lack of control measures that led to fraud was highlighted. Tighter controls across the system needs to be undertaken - and yes - I'd advocate if people as we saw defrauded the system they should no longer have any right to any other benefits. In this system there should be no rights without responsibilities and if people cannot meet their responsiblies to act in accordance with the law well my opinion is that they have no rights!

And yes, I'd be familiar with client identity services - and how it doesnt work. Biometric information will only work to the extent that those charged with implementing control measures in the Department and devising changes in policy have the necessary backgrounds and skills - these people are prepared to affect necessary changes in Departmental work practices, match skills-base to those required for implementing job specs in the Department - affect changes in social policy and work collaboratively with other EU welfare organisations including data protection to learn from best practice!

TCP/IP_King · 08-12-2009 12:37am

Darragh29 wrote: »

Doesn't exist?!?!?!?!? I'll personally go down to Superquinn tomorrow and take a picture of it in operation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Superquinn aren't exactly in the business of handing out cash to over 1,000,000 people a week, and I don't think a biometric system would have to cope with too many people attempting to fraudulently enter Superquinn

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4580447.stm

imme · 08-12-2009 12:38am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

One persons response whos not a PS worker even!!

ah sure why would someone let the truth get in the way of a good line. I guess it's just in keeping with the general anti-anything PS-related these days. All PS staff are evil, did you not know that.

Darragh29 · 08-12-2009 12:43am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Ok so your 5 minutes online is better than my 6 years experience. Grand I bow to your immense and vague knowledge that you have gathered in 5 minutes I must be wrong if you say so.

I might not have an in depth knowledge of "in person" access control systems iin particular, however I have many years experience of IT deployment, particularly in the field of remote data access and distributed applications & networks and I have enough experience in that area to know that this solution can be deployed within a few months if there was an appetite for it.

Maybe you could show us your clearly superior knowledge in this field by explaining where in legislation it is set out that it is unconstitutional as you have claimed, for the state to require the image of a fingerprint to be presented as part of a process of validation to claim welfare???

How does this opinion that you have with regard to the unconstitutionality of such a postition by the state, measure up with the fact that the state has for many many years been obliging citizens to provide an image of themselves if they want a driving licence or a passport???

I know well that such a system will cost money and that like ANY system, there is a training module that will have to be put together, this is true for any IT system that is deployed.

Our welfare bill in this state is around 22 billion Euro a year. If 10% of this figure is being paid out to fraudulent applicants, then we are handing out 2.2 billion Euro a year, to people who are not entitled to it...

Now would it cost 2.2 billion Euro a year, in a country where there are almost 500,000 people unemployed, to take the backbone of this system, modify it to suit the requirements at hand, set up a database for holding a fingerprint image and user fields, deploy a training program and a support team to manage access, security and such issues???

This is the whole problem with this country, there is a "no we can't" attitude to absolutely everything, "no we can't create jobs", "no we can't use our heads to sort out a simple problem like welfare fraud"...

galwaynative · 08-12-2009 12:47am

Ashamed to say my father was on the show tonight.

On reading this I wondered if the posters Dad was in fact a SW worker...

As usual this thread has decended into PS bashing rathering than recognising where the problems lie - the courts and what appear to be lenient sentances, the procedures (rather than the staff) and the 'getting away with it' mentality. What is mad is that there appears to be no link between the various government databases and that people working can claim welfare with the same PPSN without any automatic flagging of this. If we can't tackle fraud at that level what hope have we when it comes to forged IDs/using someone elses PPSN etc.

PeakOutput · 08-12-2009 12:51am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Ah yes all those public sector employees refusing to use technology that's not there how dare they refuse to use the imaginary technology that doesn't exist.
Its not a simple tech solutions its a huge massive one that would take years to implement on a technical level before any emplyees of the state even got to consider training/using it.

if my local club can use fingerprint scanners to make sure the right people get their coats at the end of the night the ps can find a way to use that technology to eliminate fraud

Sand · 08-12-2009 12:55am

@masteroftherealm

Wow since when am I a PS worker? Lovely assumations you made there.
Ive never worked in the Public Sector.

Cluthching at straws much?

I am not a fraud investigator I am an IT professional, I gave my professional opinion on something that I had hands on experience in. If I was a fraud investigator Im sure Id have an answer to your second question.

So whats your excuse for the instinctive negativity towards reform and process improvements? The public sector unions have an excuse - they see improvements and reform as being a bargaining chip, not BAU as it is in the private sector.

Can I assume you werent the IT proffessional who helped Superquinn install the system Darragh has seen in use? Did you tell them "Nah, that would be impossible - impossible!!!"?

@imme

you're obviously being facetious?
are you giving a general view on all of the PS?
Does one person's response on Boards.ie give the general response of the PS

I can only take my pointers from the public sectors representitives. According to the trade unions, reforms and improvements to increase efficiency are a bargaining chip to be traded for. Refer to their comments on the breakup of the last talks. For me, its part of my job to find new and better ways of doing things and getting them implemented.

Melion · 08-12-2009 12:57am

No my father isnt a SW worker, he was one of the fraudsters. The only reason he was caught was because he went to sign off to stop the payments, it was only then that anything was noticed. A joke of a system really.

Darragh29 · 08-12-2009 1:00am

galwaynative wrote: »

On reading this I wondered if the posters Dad was in fact a SW worker...

As usual this thread has decended into PS bashing rathering than recognising where the problems lie - the courts and what appear to be lenient sentances, the procedures (rather than the staff) and the 'getting away with it' mentality. What is mad is that there appears to be no link between the various government databases and that people working can claim welfare with the same PPSN without any automatic flagging of this. If we can't tackle fraud at that level what hope have we when it comes to forged IDs/using someone elses PPSN etc.

If I have my own business and I allow 10% of people to walk out the door of my shop without paying for their goods, well unless I cop on and take action, I'll be out of business. Of course I can go to the Gardai and make a complaint, but in the first instance, if I allow a situation like this to arise, well I won't be in business for long because when I have to pay my creditors at the end of the month, there won't be enough money in the bank to pay them because it didn't end up in the tills because I allowed people to walk out the door with the cash that should have been paid to me...

If I go to the Gardai and make a complaint at the end of the month that my business has folded because I've no cash left, the first thing the Garda will say to me is, "what the f*ck are you at ALLOWING 10% of your customers to take your stock without paying you?!?!?!?!?!"...

The bottom line is that I have to take ownership of the issue or else I don't get to stay open. Then we look at this situation and we see a high ranking civil servant on the TV who hasn't even a clue what the extent of the fraud is, let alone have a plan or a proposal in her head to eliminate it?!?!?!?!?!?

It is this same blind indifference that is driving people up the walls when it comes to what is going on within the public sector in Ireland...

Oafley Jones · 08-12-2009 1:03am

Sand wrote: »

@masteroftherealm

So whats your excuse for the instinctive negativity towards reform and process improvements? The public sector unions have an excuse - they see improvements and reform as being a bargaining chip, not BAU as it is in the private sector.

Can I assume you werent the IT proffessional who helped Superquinn install the system Darragh has seen in use? Did you tell them "Nah, that would be impossible - impossible!!!"?

If there's one thing I can't stand it's strawman arguments. Masteroftherealm was just pointing out the various issues that would make this a less than simple solution, that's not to confused with an "instinctive negativity towards reform".

Genuinely curious here but, Darragh since this is your area would you mind elaborating on your proposal with a breakdown and timeframe for implementation of each step, including any issues you'd envisage arising? The more detail the better.

PeakOutput · 08-12-2009 1:04am

masteroftherealm wrote: »

You honestly think that the system that Superquinn use can be used in the Governmental realm? You have no idea what your talking about mate, none whatsoever!!!
Its a frigging retail system!!!

pretty sure he didnt say use that system. the technology is there though you cant argue its not

masteroftherealm wrote: »

If your answer to the above is no then you have less experience than me in this area and should believe me when I tell you, your way way off the mark and have no practical basis to make the suggestions that you are. I am telling you from a professional point of view that the system you are proposing would have a minimum lead time of 24 months, would require legislation to be passed, would need to be put to tender, then a system be developed and trialed. It would have to be passed through the European court of Human rights as did the system in the UK. I can keep going as to why your wrong if you wish?

lets assume everything you say is correct 100% which i dont believe for a second

lets also assume it will cost a staggering 1billion euro to implement(which it wouldnt)

why dont we ......eh....you know........do it anyway? put in the hard work and graft so people just cant scam the system. lets say fraud is 1% of what we pay out. lets say 90% of this fraud is cut out with the new system. thats a saving of 220million a year every year after the system is implemented and they are hugely conservative figures

achtungbarry wrote: »

11 billion to the banks that screwed up.

54 billion to NAMA

................ and we go nuts over 1.3 billion in cuts (that I freely admit and accept are needed) to the PS.

do you understand the difference between on going costs and once off expenditure?

97i9y3941 · 08-12-2009 1:05am

need to take a toughline on all this,specially since its taxpayers money at stake,should be jailed or use an independent court to clear the clog up,its a fault at the state system too,obvious that both departments revenue/welfare dont talk to eachother,only example i seen them been working together is the high profile criminal cases...

More PS-BS on Prime Time Tonight...

Comments