Lori has been a little naughty

(02-09-2010 14:54 )mrmann Wrote:  It's bit shady, but for sh** sake, why make this a public matter? Do we really know all the details? Probably not. If she meant to do this, then yes, she made a wrong choice, but she doesn't need to have her face and name posted in the bloody paper like she murdered someone in cold blood! WTF!!! Why can't something like this be settled quietly, and without trying to publicly shame someone? It feels like they are bitter toward her because she makes decent money for showing her body and is on TV, so they have to make everyone know about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/05...unt-jailed

http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/new...6507416.jp

http://www.leyland-guardian.co.uk/leylan...6509431.jp

http://www.thisislichfield.co.uk/news/Be...ticle.html

The reporting of benefit fraud in the media is nothing new. The fact that Lori is on tv is simply the reason why you know who she is - nothing to do with why it has been reported in the news. Benefit fraud is fast becoming an endemic problem in this country costing billions that would be better off going elsewhere - so too right, those guilty of it get named and shamed. Something has to be done to try and stop it

If she (or anybody) doesn't want this kind of attention, then don't commit fraud......simple as that

I can't stand greedy muppets like this. A few years back i had to go on incapacity benifit due to a knee injury sustained playing football, after 5 weeks i was called to a medical review to assess my claim. The assessment consisted of me sitting in a chair & getting up without using my hands (To see if my knee was strong enough) as i could do this i was considered fit for work, less than a month later i was told by a doctor at the hospital i would need an operation due to the damage to my knee through going back to work early

Thats why i hate people who do what she's done, if it weren't for people like her genuine claims wouldn't be knocked back or stopped.

She committed fraud, yet will only get a £2000 fine plus court costs... About 4-6 weeks work depending on how many shifts she does (Probably 2-4 per week)

(02-09-2010 15:02 )astonv1 Wrote:  Seems she isnt the only glamour model who does this.. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...ipper.html

Indeed. This is the most famous one.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=...Pax1pvoJQg

i like the fact that people are missing out something slightly relevant in the article

"Anne Crossfield, defending, said the model's stepmother had filled in the forms on her behalf and Buckby had signed them.

Ms Crossfield said her client realised this was "an entirely ill-advised" way to conduct her affairs. "

so she may have done it unknowingly, if she just signed them, she may not have read the forms, ok then it comes down to her not paying attention. we do no know all the facts, the sun likes to go all outrageous as well dramaticising. i'd rather not judge unless i know all the facts, which unless i was involved in the hearing, i wouldn't and none of you would.

Then it's her fault for being stupid enough not to read the forms she was signing.

It's her claim so she should fill in the forms. If she doesn't and somebody else cocks it up she's only herself to blame if things go pear-shaped.

(02-09-2010 15:02 )astonv1 Wrote:  Seems she isnt the only glamour model who does this.. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...ipper.html

yep saw that a while ago. she used to be on the babechannels too

bobthegoon Wrote:i like the fact that people are missing out something slightly relevant in the article

I could argue that you are missing the point - it doesn't matter if it was her mum or herself filling in the forms.....Lori's name should not have been on them at all if she was no longer caring for him

And she must have noticed the money still appearing in her bank account, yet said nothing

Besides, if you won't to go down the road of what we may or may not know......how do you know the story about her mum being the one who filled the forms in is true? That may simply have been given as an attempted excuse

Did she claim money as a career and then pay for homecare for him with it?
That would be understandable

Does anyone on the forum know the rules for careers allowance?
Who should be claiming and for what?

(02-09-2010 15:18 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Did she claim money as a career and then pay for homecare for him with it?
That would be understandable

Does anyone on the forum know the rules for careers allowance?
Who should be claiming and for what?

People with a disability are entitled to care. How this goes about is 2 entirely seperate cases.

You either have someone known to you who provides the care for you and can thus claim carers allowance. If you are getting proper healthcare at home, you would claim for that (attendance allowance)

You do not claim carers allowance to pay someone else to do what you are claiming for. Carers allowance is a form of nominal pay for you, personally, to be providing the care.

EDIT: If someone else was to provide the care, it would be them who claim for the carers allowance

Carers Allowance link

Attendance Allowance link