At a risk of sounding like a Daily Mail editorial (NB I would only read the DM if there is no alternative while waiting for a haircut), I cannot believe Ray is as naive as the following message suggests. "Partners of lone parents" certainly suggests to me a component of sexual activity, though I have no metric of the enjoyment thereof. "I imagine the partners are fairly well informed [about DHS regulations]" and "how they handle money, so as not to infringe the rules"? (a) We are discussing working class teen and 20s males; they may be street-wise to dodges but is that, in societial terms, being "well informed"? It sounds to me that Ray is tacitly describing the situation - hence the DM reference - of feckless young men who father children then provide no support while the mother claims the right not to identify the father but lives on benefits (and under-the-counterpane payments).
Don't flame me. I have no facts on which to base such an argument, but I could see it as the "John Humphries" come back to such assertions.
Name and address withheld.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 July 2004 00:21
Subject: Re: Census figures can no longer be relied on
I find it difficult to believe that benefit fraud has much influence on
census accuracy.
A major influence of the benefit system is that identified by Paul earlier
when he suggested that the missing men could include up to one-third of a
million men who are partners of lone parents.
'Partners' is a useful word in this situation. Typically (I hope) there is
a component of sexual enjoyment in these relationships. But neither
cooperative sexual activity nor sleeping together disqualifies a single
parent from benefit. The rules stress financial interdependence.
Typically I imagine that the partners are fairly well informed and they
carefully manage the relationship, and addresses, and how they handle money,
so as not to infringe the rules that allow them retain a degree of financial
independence from each other. It would not be very meaningful to
describe this as fraud. The partners are just conducting their affairs in
ways that are consistent with the DSS rules.
It would present a bit of quandary if single parents confessed to receiving
money from their partners in return for sexual favours. Would that
demonstrate financial interdependence? Or would it demonstrate
prostitution aiming to achieve professional independence? No easy
answers.
Understandably, the DSS would prefer to avoid getting involved in such
questions. But the GSS and the ONS appear to go to an extreme in refusing
to even think about the influence of the benefit system on survey and census
response rates.
Is there any acknowledgement in any of the debate on census shortcomings
that there are good reasons to expect that the 'partners' of lone parents
are likely to have been missed?
Ray Thomas
35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Bivand" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Census figures can no longer be relied on
> Benefit fraud is a rather complex issue - which is likely to have had some
> sort of impact on the census results as indicated to some extent in my
> comments quoted in the article.
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|