We already have a way of getting stupid people to make additional voluntary contributions to the coffers - it's called the National Lottery.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency have smashed a scam letter scheme which could have netted an estimated £35m a year. Following a police raid on a building in Somerset, payments totalling nearly half a million pounds were recovered.
People had typically sent £20 cash and Soca believes the fraud could have yielded over £35m a year if it had continued (in other words "£35m" is a made up figure).
Cheques are now being returned to the 22,000 senders with a letter warning them about the scam.
but...think of the cost...
27p for a 2nd class stamp x 22,000 = £5940
+ an envelope + printed letter + man hours + bank charges for the cheques
+ sundries = an extra inefficient £10,000 maybe ?
and I thought; thats outrageous - how much should the taxpayer spend sending money back to stupid people ? oh, try, Nothing! (Or perhaps we could send them £19 after "administration fees")
And the cash itself, thats about £440,000 that could have gone into the public purse for the benefit of society.
Thoughts?
We already have a way of getting stupid people to make additional voluntary contributions to the coffers - it's called the National Lottery.
There is no lawful basis on which the money can be withheld.
Plus, I don't think there'll be any Royal Mail costs.
Sorry but while I can agree with you that anyone that is taken in by such a letter scam and sends money gets very little sympathy from me I do resent yourr implication that those people that subscribe to the National lottery are just as stupid.
The distribution of lottery funds doesnt always sit well with me but certainly those of us that have won are very grateful.
Whats a couple of quid a week.Less than a packet of fags or a pint of beer.
I know what I would rather spend my money on.
I'm just guessing here but I suspect a good proportion of these apparently culpably stupid people are in one way or another quite vulnerable - possibly elderly and confused, (I know, personally, of at least three cases of elderly people being hit on by scams of some sort) economically or psychologically unstable or with some degree of learning difficulties . It would be interesting to know the demographic breakdown of these crime victims; after all, we caring forumites wouldn't wish to add the harsh judgements of a smug minority of intellectually and probably economically secure people to a group already laden with problems, now, would we?
Will that do ya, DS?
Indeed it will no one ever publishes stats like that -it would not be PC to label people in such a way, even though everyone has lots of labels that can apply to them and not all will be flattering So we are stuck with sweeping generalisations and an implied, and certainly undeserved, arrogant superiority, or discussion...discussion is good
I'm just designing a feedback sheet to be included with the returned cheques.
Nothing could be more unPC than those council forms endlessly asking me whether I'm a.white b.the rest. so I'm sure data could be compiled for this kind of crime. The police obviously have a dossier the size of a small house on the scam.
Anyway, since when has it been unPC to be elderly? Or poor? Or have learning difficulties? Some would argue it's unPC to ignore these factors.
I don't think we're stuck with anything. However when it comes to generalisations, "stupid" (unqualified and unconsidered) does a great job of sweeping.So we are stuck with sweeping generalisations and an implied, and certainly undeserved, arrogant superiority, or discussion...discussion is good
What's with the "arrogant superiority" bit? I thought:
a.You wanted an arrogant superiority forum fest.
b.You wanted to needle a bit of RI out of a somnolent, even moribund forum.
I was expecting you to be really pleased!
Last edited by DavidY; 12th-April-2009 at 06:29 PM. Reason: Fixing quote
I suppose, if you say so, but the people at Bradford & Bingley looked like such nice people.
and I can't help wondering how all of those bankers got to where they were to be able to invest all that money as they did.
========
I suspect that the fact is that we are all being scammed in one way or another most days, if not every day, of our lives.
I always put "mixed race" on those forms, as I only know my heritage for a few generations of my mothers side and I wouldn't want to lie.
Some would, but people avoid negative labels and often anything not "average" can be taken as negative, especially when used for profiling.Anyway, since when has it been unPC to be elderly? Or poor? Or have learning difficulties? Some would argue it's unPC to ignore these factors.
oh...and other people (read "the media") mock outrage at other people labeling yet more people in an "insulting" way when its merely factual. iyswim.
i'm confused too.
Don't try and read between the lines of previous replies - your point a and b are the correct thoughts and it did work out that wayWhat's with the "arrogant superiority" bit? I thought:
a.You wanted an arrogant superiority forum fest.
b.You wanted to needle a bit of RI out of a somnolent, even moribund forum.
I was expecting you to be really pleased!
I want to put "Welsh" but that's always too unmentionable to be included.
Let's give our bank details to that nice chap from Nigeria who keeps emailing me to see if it helps clear the fog a bit.
i'm confused too.
My work here is done!Don't try and read between the lines of previous replies - your point a and b are the correct thoughts and it did work out that way
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks