Re: Government Noses

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roland Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 06 September 2003 13:14
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Government Noses 
> >
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
> > >Or perhaps you can explain how you manage to obtain such 
> > information without
> > >prior surveillance of people who are only suspected of 
> > benefit fraud,  in
> > >such a way that your success hit rate is very nearly 100%? 
> >
> > Don't laugh, but the DWP Bill Team working on the SSF Bill assured 
> > industry that they had a 99% conviction rate when prosecuting 
> > benefits 
> > fraud, and therefore really did only want data on actual criminals.
>
> But that is not what I was saying... 
>
> I was pointing out that if, as Simon would have it, they are not collecting
> information on the public at large,  their rate of accurately identifying
> people as criminal or not must be nearly 100% before they even start
> collecting the intelligence, let alone contemplating the prosecution. 
>
> Dave.

An the reason for a 99% conviction rate? Pick on the easiest saddest and 
dummest, and then deprive them of proper legal assistance. 


--
David Swarbrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1484 384767