Pakistani politician got paid £1,000 a month in UK benefits

What a wonder system

Quote:

---

A prominent Pakistani politician has been receiving British state benefits to which he was not entitled while living in a palatial home in Karachi.

As the governor of Sindh province in Pakistan, Dr Ishrat-Ul-Ebad Khan lives in a mansion in the state capital while being waited on by servants and chauffeured in Mercedes limousines.

Yet, while enjoying the perks of his position, Dr Khan was for 10 months the recipient of money from the benefits system, including income support worth about £1,000 a month.

Taxpayers also funded the £244-a-week rent on a house in north-west London, that Dr Khan keeps as a base for his family in Britain. His wife, Shaheena, also received benefits because she had been diagnosed with a "stress disorder". Extra money was added to allow for Dr Khan, who did not have a job, as her full-time carer.

Last night Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP whose Hendon constituency includes the house rented by the Khans, called on ministers to launch an immediate inquiry. Mr Dismore, a former member of the Commons Work and Pensions select committee, said: "I would be very surprised if the rules allowed this."

Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat spokesman on work and pensions, said: "A system that allows mistakes such as this to occur is clearly not working." When confronted by The Sunday Telegraph, Dr Khan, who has four children, admitted receiving benefits to which he was not entitled since taking up his position as governor three years ago but insisted that he had paid back the money. There has been no further claim since October 2003.

Dr Khan, who trained at Sindh Medical College in Karachi, came to Britain in 1992 as an asylum seeker. Following the acceptance of his asylum claim in 1999, Dr Khan was entitled to a range of British benefits. He and his family have been living in a pebble-dashed semi-detached corner house in Edgware, a north London suburb since 1997. In May 1999, they began claiming income support, which also entitled him to other payments, such as housing benefit.

Dr Khan said that he had repaid a matter of "a few hundred pounds" but he was keen to make sure any money that might still be outstanding was reimbursed. "If anything has been done, even inadvertently, I would very much like to rectify it. But in our opinion we have not tried to misguide or mislead."

---

He paid it back so what's the problem? £12,000 a year isn't a lot to raise 4 children on in London...

I am so sorry, what is the law for but to break it.

It just goes to show yet again what a complete shambles most of the systems within this country are. How could somebody for 10 months get money they are not entitled to. What are the council morons doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

Dr Khan, who has four children, admitted receiving benefits to which he was not entitled since taking up his position as governor three years ago but insisted that he had paid back the money. There has been no further claim since October 2003

---

So news hot off the press then?

Let me just examine my concience and decide how much a 3 year old benefit fiddle that may or may not have been repaid bothers me...



.. naah.. NEXT!

Idaho,

yep it is fresh of the press. The first I heard of it was in the Sunday papers.

Quote:

---

So news hot off the press then?

Let me just examine my concience and decide how much a 3 year old benefit fiddle that may or may not have been repaid bothers me...



.. naah.. NEXT!

---

So its nice to see people care about where the tax's are being paid.

Don't you have better things to do than trawl through the papers searching for 'horror' stories about 'sponging' non-anglo saxons ?

Quote:

---

Don't you have better things to do than trawl through the papers searching for 'horror' stories about 'sponging' non-anglo saxons

---

Not on a Sunday, the day of rest ~;)
and by-the-way it was front page news ~D or should I have got the guardian and the offer for those free rock tickets. I can see who reads that :book:

Rtaher read the Guardian than another article about Katie Marshes' tits :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

So its nice to see people care about where the tax's are being paid.

---

Yeah but you don't really care about tax money. If you did you wouldn't be fizzing about the odd few thousand quid here and there but the big bucks that get spent on fat corporate contracts, PFI, wars, dubious military projects etc.

The fact is that some grifter getting a few grand in benefits is a much easier target than systemic government waste.

Quote:

---

Yeah but you don't really care about tax money. If you did you wouldn't be fizzing about the odd few thousand quid here and there but the big bucks that get spent on fat corporate contracts, PFI, wars, dubious military projects etc.

The fact is that some grifter getting a few grand in benefits is a much easier target than systemic government waste.

---

I do care, I would start with the small fish to prove that they cant get away with anything. Benefit cheats, prisoners, single mothers who only get preg to have a new house and increased benifits

I would then move onto the amount of money wasted by Local councils, who want to ensure they get the same budget allocated to them as last year, so they waste the money allocated to them, just to spend it. I would ensure a proper system was introduced, if its not broken why install a new system. Money does not grow on tree, but local authorities waste it like its going out of fashion.

I would finally move onto the big fish, the companies and ensure everything was above board.

So much money is spent and wasted by governement, any government.
Expenses, travel allowances, living expenses, stationery, new folders, dividers etc....

Quote:

---

but the big bucks that get spent on fat corporate contracts, PFI, wars, dubious military projects etc.

---

fat corporate contracts (all gov's do this- how would you stop it, friends will always want to feature other friends pockets - you scrub mine I'll scrub yours)
PFI - sorry what s a PFI are you talking about Private Finance Initiative or something else?
wars (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Afghans, Iraq, Falklands - which ones ?)
dubious military projects (again which ones - examples please)

If we want to talk about this properly can we have some examples.........

I do care, I would start with the small fish
I would finally move onto the big fish
But Shades you would be wasting your time , burying yourelf with endless paperwork over trifling little amounts so you would never even get the chance to go after the big fish.
Its like the Captain of the Titanic worrying about fixing a dripping tap when there's a bloody big hole in the side of the ship .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I do care, I would start with the small fish
I would finally move onto the big fish
But Shades you would be wasting your time , burying yourelf with endless paperwork over trifling little amounts so you would never even get the chance to go after the big fish.
Its like the Captain of the Titanic worrying about fixing a dripping tap when there's a bloody big hole in the side of the ship .

---

But you have to stop this culture of fiddling, you have to make it socailly unacceptable, a few choice cases, rewards for people that shop those who are claiming thinging they are not entitled to.

Prison sentences - with hard labour not the easy stuff they get now. We are far to easy on people who commit crime, its no wonder we have all these an social behaviour problems.....

We have no respect for anything or anybody.

But you have to stop this culture of fiddling,

Yes , but why start at the botttom and work up , start at the top and work down , it will yield a lot more money in a far shorter time .
why bother going after someone that when it gets to court will end up paying the money back at £5 a week for the next 20 years , especially when that £5 will be coming out of money you are giving them in the first place . Go after the big fish first and sieze their assets then take the money and go after all the small fish .
Each case will require lots of paper work and legal fees . If you target the small cases the chances are you not only have to pay your costs you have to pay their legal aid as well , the returns will be minimal or even negative . So fleece the big fiddlers and use that money to fleece the little fish .