Wife Buries Dead Husband & Carries On Claiming Disability Benefits

17th February 2014

There is a huge business in benefits fraud in this country. The massive amounts of money people are able to claim has created a vulgar greedy underclass of disgusting people.

Stop benefits, stop this!

A wife who secretly buried her dead husband under a garden rockery and continued to collect his benefits payments for four years was jailed yesterday.

Rebekah Sturdey disposed of her husband Geoffrey's body on their isolated small holding - and pocketed over £70,000.

The 56-year-old carried out the secret burial with two other women after he died aged 60 of a suspected heart attack.

Officials became suspicious after disability allowance and pension credits totalling £77,318 were paid in Mr Sturdey's name after he was last seen alive in 2008.

Sturdey buried her husband with the help of his paid carer, Boqer-Ore Adie and Adie's daughter, Karmel.

Prosecutor Huw Rees said Adie, 43, was paid in excess of £19,000 in income support and carers' allowance for looking after Mr Sturdey in the years after he died.

The Department for Work and Pensions said after October 2008, when Mr Sturdey died, his wife and carer claimed £21,718 in disability living allowances, £9,415 in carer's allowance, £10,143 in income support and £36,041 in pension credits.

Mrs Sturdey and Adie were both given 20 months in prison. Karmel Adie was given a nine-month suspended sentence.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561451/Wife-secretly-buried-dead-husband-garden-ROCKERY-continued-collect-benefits-payments-four-years-jailed.html#ixzz2tciEFTzR

BigAndy9 wrote:17th February 2014

There is a huge business in benefits fraud in this country.  The massive amounts of money people are able to claim has created a vulgar greedy underclass of disgusting people.

Stop benefits, stop this!

A wife who secretly buried her dead husband under a garden rockery and continued to collect his benefits payments for four years was jailed yesterday.

Rebekah Sturdey disposed of her husband Geoffrey's body on their isolated small holding - and pocketed over £70,000.

The 56-year-old carried out the secret burial with two other women after he died aged 60 of a suspected heart attack.

Officials became suspicious after disability allowance and pension credits totalling £77,318 were paid in Mr Sturdey's name after he was last seen alive in 2008.

Sturdey buried her husband with the help of his paid carer, Boqer-Ore Adie and Adie's daughter, Karmel.

Prosecutor Huw Rees said Adie, 43, was paid in excess of £19,000 in income support and carers' allowance for looking after Mr Sturdey in the years after he died.

The Department for Work and Pensions said after October 2008, when Mr Sturdey died, his wife and carer claimed £21,718 in disability living allowances, £9,415 in carer's allowance, £10,143 in income support and £36,041 in pension credits.

Mrs Sturdey and Adie were both given 20 months in prison. Karmel Adie was given a nine-month suspended sentence.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561451/Wife-secretly-buried-dead-husband-garden-ROCKERY-continued-collect-benefits-payments-four-years-jailed.html#ixzz2tciEFTzR

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

Truly awful, sadly we will always have this type of greed in society, but quite rare to this extent!...

Just as we have child molesters/ predators like Jimmy ,Savile...so, shall we always unfortunately.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:17th February 2014

There is a huge business in benefits fraud in this country.  The massive amounts of money people are able to claim has created a vulgar greedy underclass of disgusting people.

Stop benefits, stop this!

A wife who secretly buried her dead husband under a garden rockery and continued to collect his benefits payments for four years was jailed yesterday.

Rebekah Sturdey disposed of her husband Geoffrey's body on their isolated small holding - and pocketed over £70,000.

The 56-year-old carried out the secret burial with two other women after he died aged 60 of a suspected heart attack.

Officials became suspicious after disability allowance and pension credits totalling £77,318 were paid in Mr Sturdey's name after he was last seen alive in 2008.

Sturdey buried her husband with the help of his paid carer, Boqer-Ore Adie and Adie's daughter, Karmel.

Prosecutor Huw Rees said Adie, 43, was paid in excess of £19,000 in income support and carers' allowance for looking after Mr Sturdey in the years after he died.

The Department for Work and Pensions said after October 2008, when Mr Sturdey died, his wife and carer claimed £21,718 in disability living allowances, £9,415 in carer's allowance, £10,143 in income support and £36,041 in pension credits.

Mrs Sturdey and Adie were both given 20 months in prison. Karmel Adie was given a nine-month suspended sentence.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561451/Wife-secretly-buried-dead-husband-garden-ROCKERY-continued-collect-benefits-payments-four-years-jailed.html#ixzz2tciEFTzR

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

Joy Division wrote:Truly awful, sadly we will always have this type of greed in society, but quite rare to this extent!...

Just as we have child molesters/ predators like Jimmy ,Savile...so, shall we always unfortunately.

Quite rare?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:17th February 2014

There is a huge business in benefits fraud in this country.  The massive amounts of money people are able to claim has created a vulgar greedy underclass of disgusting people.

Stop benefits, stop this!

A wife who secretly buried her dead husband under a garden rockery and continued to collect his benefits payments for four years was jailed yesterday.

Rebekah Sturdey disposed of her husband Geoffrey's body on their isolated small holding - and pocketed over £70,000.

The 56-year-old carried out the secret burial with two other women after he died aged 60 of a suspected heart attack.

Officials became suspicious after disability allowance and pension credits totalling £77,318 were paid in Mr Sturdey's name after he was last seen alive in 2008.

Sturdey buried her husband with the help of his paid carer, Boqer-Ore Adie and Adie's daughter, Karmel.

Prosecutor Huw Rees said Adie, 43, was paid in excess of £19,000 in income support and carers' allowance for looking after Mr Sturdey in the years after he died.

The Department for Work and Pensions said after October 2008, when Mr Sturdey died, his wife and carer claimed £21,718 in disability living allowances, £9,415 in carer's allowance, £10,143 in income support and £36,041 in pension credits.

Mrs Sturdey and Adie were both given 20 months in prison. Karmel Adie was given a nine-month suspended sentence.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561451/Wife-secretly-buried-dead-husband-garden-ROCKERY-continued-collect-benefits-payments-four-years-jailed.html#ixzz2tciEFTzR

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

So it's "reduce" them now instead of "stop" them? You need to pick a stance and stick to it!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

So it's "reduce" them now instead of "stop" them? You need to pick a stance and stick to it!

I'll choose my stance however I want to choose it.

And i'll do the same for my catchy phrases and thread titles, thank you very much!

Oh right, it's your forum is it?   

Sassy wrote:Oh right, it's your forum is it?   

No but as far as I'm aware we're allowed to be ourselves on here sassy.

Don't try and look good in front of Ben you pleb.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

So it's "reduce" them now instead of "stop" them? You need to pick a stance and stick to it!

I'll choose my stance however I want to choose it.

And i'll do the same for my catchy phrases and thread titles, thank you very much!

Apparently in this case, that means "say what I really mean and then quickly backtrack."

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh right, it's your forum is it?   

No but as far as I'm aware we're allowed to be ourselves on here sassy.

Don't try and look good in front of Ben you pleb.

I was referring to thread titles, if Ben don't like 'em, he can change 'em, he already has some that break the rules.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I'll choose my stance however I want to choose it.

And i'll do the same for my catchy phrases and thread titles, thank you very much!

Apparently in this case, that means "say what I really mean and then quickly backtrack."

No not at all - I've made my stance very clear over 4 years - JD/sphinx etc will say I hate this I hate that I'm evil because I want everybody to starve. I have then replied that I understand that benefits are there as a safety net and there are some people who are working very hard and then have a car crash etc and are unable to work blah blah.

However, the next day that will be forgotten...

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I'll choose my stance however I want to choose it.

And i'll do the same for my catchy phrases and thread titles, thank you very much!

Apparently in this case, that means "say what I really mean and then quickly backtrack."

No not at all - I've made my stance very clear over 4 years - JD/sphinx etc will say I hate this I hate that I'm evil because I want everybody to starve.  I have then replied that I understand that benefits are there as a safety net and there are some people who are working very hard and then have a car crash etc and are unable to work blah blah.

However, the next day that will be forgotten...

Cool, maybe you shouldn't say "stop benefits" then!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No not at all - I've made my stance very clear over 4 years - JD/sphinx etc will say I hate this I hate that I'm evil because I want everybody to starve.  I have then replied that I understand that benefits are there as a safety net and there are some people who are working very hard and then have a car crash etc and are unable to work blah blah.

However, the next day that will be forgotten...

Cool, maybe you shouldn't say "stop benefits" then!

No, I love saying it - it sounds so good.

This woman is obviously greedy and awful - can't even begin to imagine why you'd sling your husband in the back yard - but this is a very isolated case isn't it?

Yes people do commit fraud on benefits, but why would you punish the real needy recipients and not just the criminals??

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

How much tighter do you want the rules? How much stringent the checks?

What do you consider a realistic level of fraud within a system?

How does that compare to how rules and checks and fraud in the taxation system?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Cool, maybe you shouldn't say "stop benefits" then!

No, I love saying it - it sounds so good.

...get you chancing Tories oot'.

Giving our Money to the Queen, but wishing ill at others not so fortunate and sneering at their poverty.

Silly, spoiled wee mammy's boys.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

How much do you think the benefits should be reduced by Andy?
Do you think it should be all benefits?
How much do you think this would save the country?

What more stringent checks would you want?
How can the rules be tightened?
Who would enforce these tighter rules, bearing in mind most of the one stops have gone and job centre staffing levels decimated. How much do you think this would cost the country?

NemsAgain wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

How much do you think the benefits should be reduced by Andy?
Do you think it should be all benefits?
How much do you think this would save the country?

What more stringent checks would you want?
How can the rules be tightened?
Who would enforce these tighter rules, bearing in mind most of the one stops have gone and job centre staffing levels decimated. How much do you think this would cost the country?

The maximum amount of benefits should be a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage. There are many adults out there earning £11 - 15,000 and getting by.

It should be impossible for somebody to carry on claiming benefits for 4 years after somebody has died.

People should not be able to claim benefits for kids in different EU countries.

EU foreigners here should get the same from our government as they would their own government - not 3x more.

No child benefits after 2 children.

Foreigners should be contributing tax and N.I. for 5 years before being entitled to housing and benefits.

Now come on - that isn't difficult is it, and I think you'd agree with most of those.

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

How much do you think the benefits should be reduced by Andy?
Do you think it should be all benefits?
How much do you think this would save the country?

What more stringent checks would you want?
How can the rules be tightened?
Who would enforce these tighter rules, bearing in mind most of the one stops have gone and job centre staffing levels decimated. How much do you think this would cost the country?

The maximum amount of benefits should be a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage.  There are many adults out there earning £11 - 15,000 and getting by.

It should be impossible for somebody to carry on claiming benefits for 4 years after somebody has died.

People should not be able to claim benefits for kids in different EU countries.

EU foreigners here should get the same from our government as they would their own government - not 3x more.

No child benefits after 2 children.

Foreigners should be contributing tax and N.I. for 5 years before being entitled to housing and benefits.

Now come on - that isn't difficult is it, and I think you'd agree with most of those.

OK then

so you presumably want to do away with the current multiple benefit system and replace it with a single amount equal to working minimum wage.

In such a scheme what is to prevent people deciding not to work?

What about disabilities?

What about children?

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

The maximum amount of benefits should be a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage.  There are many adults out there earning £11 - 15,000 and getting by.

It should be impossible for somebody to carry on claiming benefits for 4 years after somebody has died.

People should not be able to claim benefits for kids in different EU countries.

EU foreigners here should get the same from our government as they would their own government - not 3x more.

No child benefits after 2 children.

Foreigners should be contributing tax and N.I. for 5 years before being entitled to housing and benefits.

Now come on - that isn't difficult is it, and I think you'd agree with most of those.

OK then

so you presumably want to do away with the current multiple benefit system and replace it with a single amount equal to working minimum wage.

In such a scheme what is to prevent people deciding not to work?

What about disabilities?

What about children?

If people are allowed to used the "what about the children" card forever, there is absolutely no point in making any rules, are there?

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

OK then

so you presumably want to do away with the current multiple benefit system and replace it with a single amount equal to working minimum wage.

In such a scheme what is to prevent people deciding not to work?

What about disabilities?

What about children?

If people are allowed to used the "what about the children" card forever, there is absolutely no point in making any rules, are there?

Of course there are.

In making rules you have to consider what is funded and how it is funded.

Plus you avoided the bit about preventing people deciding not to work.

So again if benefits equal minimum wage what is to stop people failing to work?

How will benefits be financed?

Will the 60 year old man who has worked 22 years of his life get the same as the 20 year old who has never worked?

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

If people are allowed to used the "what about the children" card forever, there is absolutely no point in making any rules, are there?

Of course there are.

In making rules you have to consider what is funded and how it is funded.

Plus you avoided the bit about preventing people deciding not to work.

So again if benefits equal minimum wage what is to stop people failing to work?

How will benefits be financed?

Will the 60 year old man who has worked 22 years of his life get the same as the 20 year old who has never worked?

What I have done is put down the few things I think should happen, because you and nems asked me how I think things should be tightened - i'm not writing entire policies sphinx.

But let's look at one of your questions - "what is to prevent people deciding not to work?" - why would people decide not to work under my tightened rule of lower benefits? I said the maximum benefit given should be the equivalent of a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage - that's just over £13,100. So that's half of what they can get now and much less than the £50,000 they were getting under Labour.

I only talked about bringing the maximum amount down sphinx, like I said, i'm not writing a document here.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Of course there are.

In making rules you have to consider what is funded and how it is funded.

Plus you avoided the bit about preventing people deciding not to work.

So again if benefits equal minimum wage what is to stop people failing to work?

How will benefits be financed?

Will the 60 year old man who has worked 22 years of his life get the same as the 20 year old who has never worked?

What I have done is put down the few things I think should happen, because you and nems asked me how I think things should be tightened - i'm not writing entire policies sphinx.

But let's look at one of your questions - "what is to prevent people deciding not to work?"  - why would people decide not to work under my tightened rule of lower benefits?  I said the maximum benefit given should be the equivalent of a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage - that's just over £13,100.   So that's half of what they can get now and much less than the £50,000 they were getting under Labour.

I only talked about bringing the maximum amount down sphinx, like I said, i'm not writing a document here.

Not quite as easy as you think to sort out is it?

I notice you fall into the "£25,000 maximum benefits means getting more than those working" trap. For an unemployed person to be getting £25000 in benefits they will have lots of children - and a person working minimum wage with the same number of children will also get a massive amount of benefits - but the big benefit bills paid to those in work are always ignored arent they?

Where do you put the person working part time who gets £25000 in benefits Andy - striver or shirker?

This type of incident is rare I'm sure. Organised crime with many tens of claims even hundreds is much more common. Someone mentioned children am I alone in suggesting that this is an area that is a concern. Should we pay for unlimited amounts of children?

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

What I have done is put down the few things I think should happen, because you and nems asked me how I think things should be tightened - i'm not writing entire policies sphinx.

But let's look at one of your questions - "what is to prevent people deciding not to work?"  - why would people decide not to work under my tightened rule of lower benefits?  I said the maximum benefit given should be the equivalent of a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage - that's just over £13,100.   So that's half of what they can get now and much less than the £50,000 they were getting under Labour.

I only talked about bringing the maximum amount down sphinx, like I said, i'm not writing a document here.

Not quite as easy as you think to sort out is it? As I think? What do I think?

I notice you fall into the "£25,000 maximum benefits means getting more than those working" trap.  For an unemployed person to be getting £25000 in benefits they will have lots of children

So?

 - and a person working minimum wage with the same number of children will also get a massive amount of benefits - but the big benefit bills paid to those in work are always ignored arent they?

No they won't - I've already dealt with that - the maximum anybody would get is £13,100 ish. If they are working full time and earning £12,000 and they have 10 kids, the maximum benefit they would get is around £1,100 ish. According to what I have said - you get it??

Where do you put the person working part time who gets £25000 in benefits Andy - striver or shirker? Somebody who works part time who then takes £25,000 off the tax payer - I put them in the bin marked "disgusting b4st4rd".

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Truly awful, sadly we will always have this type of greed in society, but quite rare to this extent!...

Just as we have child molesters/ predators like Jimmy ,Savile...so, shall we always unfortunately.

Quite rare?

Good point, JD. Do the existence of Banks cause bank robberies? Ridiculous. Anything can be abused.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

OK, so we see that the agenda is not to stop benefits FRAUD, but to stop BENEFITS.

No, reduce benefits.

Have more stringent checks.

Tighter rules.

Collecting benefits for 4 years - I've seen that so many times - how the hell??

Reducing benefits will do nothing to reduce fraud. You might as well say reducing the size of the military will stop frauds upon the government.

The two have nothing to do with one another.

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

How much do you think the benefits should be reduced by Andy?
Do you think it should be all benefits?
How much do you think this would save the country?

What more stringent checks would you want?
How can the rules be tightened?
Who would enforce these tighter rules, bearing in mind most of the one stops have gone and job centre staffing levels decimated. How much do you think this would cost the country?

The maximum amount of benefits should be a 40 hour week on the maximum minimum wage.  There are many adults out there earning £11 - 15,000 and getting by.

Yeah but they will be getting HB etc to top up terrible wages.

It should be impossible for somebody to carry on claiming benefits for 4 years after somebody has died.
It should but unless a GP or someone raises a concern, how will they know?

People should not be able to claim benefits for kids in different EU countries.
Completely agree, its a disgrace


EU foreigners here should get the same from our government as they would their own government - not 3x more.
Not sure how that would work cost of living in their own country is prob much lower


No child benefits after 2 children.

Yup agree

Foreigners should be contributing tax and N.I. for 5 years before being entitled to housing and benefits.
I do think we should make them evidence that they can support themselves on arrival

Now come on - that isn't difficult is it, and I think you'd agree with most of those.

Actually I would. I just question if the cost benefit would be worth it and also there is no political will for this is there?

I agree with all the points you've made above to Andy, nems, except why should a third or fourth child mean you can't get money for them?
Each child you have gets less, so it's not as if people are raking in money by having more children?
I don't understand why you and Andy feel that is fair?