12 comments for “Is Danegeld a good investment?

  1. June 5, 2011 at 6:38 am

    No. It’s a moral failing to allow others to be paid to do nothing, while others work to support them.

    And two examples? That’s all he has? Plus, he doesn’t know that they aren’t engaged in crime, and he just hasn’t caught them at it yet!

  2. Sue
    June 5, 2011 at 6:59 am

    Definitely not. Those that commit crimes should do HARD time. If we would just ensure our justice system is fair and prisons are very unpleasant places to be, that would be enough to put most people off committing crimes.

    Paying criminals not to commit crimes is blackmail.

  3. June 5, 2011 at 8:19 am

    At last, Daily Mail readers!

    • June 5, 2011 at 9:10 am

      :mrgreen:

      • Sue
        June 5, 2011 at 10:41 am

        “At last, Daily Mail readers!” What’s that supposed to mean? It’s the difference between right and wrong, something which seems to have escaped normally sane people.

        “it isn’t yet a crime to claim disability benefit for a self-induced disability” Does that make right then? No, it doesn’t, it just means the laws are idiotic and so is this governments policies.

        • June 5, 2011 at 10:51 am

          I’m a Daily Mail reader myself, as Julia has obviously twigged above. The bien-pensants have skilfully turned DMR into an opprobrious epithet because people like Peter Hitchens offer an alternative – a better and less self-indulgent – idea of freedom and right-and-wrong.

        • June 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm

          Your leg was being pulled 😉

  4. Ian F4
    June 5, 2011 at 10:05 am

    It’s a moot argument and not a case of “Danegold”, these people are still “criminals” in that they are stealing money from others, only legitimised because the theft is via the public purse. The fact is, it isn’t yet a crime to claim disability benefit for a self-induced disability, which prevents them from being prosecuted. This kind of fraud is an activity not that far removed from Income/VAT Tax evasion and should be treated the same.

  5. Den
    June 5, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The only reason housing criminals is too expensive is because we are too damned soft on them. Convict them; ship them off to the USA and let Joe Arpaio look after them; pay them double what it is costing him to “look after” them and the country would still save a fortune even after deducting air-fares (military flights/cargo planes).

    Just get tough; anyone doing say “more than one year” ship them out and no parole .. they do the full stretch. I’ll bet crime suddenly becomes a less attractive option ..

    • June 6, 2011 at 5:35 am

      Oh, indeed. But then Sheriff Joe doesn’t have the HRA to deal with…

  6. PT
    June 5, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Par for the course, I’m afraid, in today’s Britain. We should actually be glad, probably, that the benefits in this case are being paid to home-grown criminals, resident in the UK.
    The UK is brain-dead, just still exhibiting nervous spasms. The Scots are probably wise to prepare to jump ship.

    • C H Ingoldby
      June 5, 2011 at 10:00 pm

      The Scots are even more welfare dependent, Statist dole junkies than the English.

Comments are closed.