well you would think in this country you are innocent untuil proven guilty...and yes someone up there made a good point...why, after so long ago did centreflunk chase her? why when she was famous? smells like a free scare campaign to me

Centrelink will chase anyone, any time, for any reason. Harassing people is one of the very few things they're good at. :)

ok Mythor.. I'll head back to my site... at least we have common sense there... your fanatical support of this Ajay must be due to something you are not disclosing here.. like she's your fantasy shag or something ?? Maybe your sister ?

Political tirades ? Man, do you have a wake up call coming... at least on my site we're attempting to do some constructive assistance to people under the Centrelink hammer... this site seems to be just your personal rave about Ajay.... sad...

watchdoggie1951

This site is a fansite for a TV show. It isn't the only site I run. Nor is it my "personal rave about Ajay". What's truly sad is that you assume one single post can summarise an entire website.
And you should note that I didn't criticise Centreflunk, only suggested that that may be a more appropriate venue than continuing your crusade here.

And "fanatical support"? You mean because I haven't hung, drawn and quartered her before the trial's even started?
You can't seriously be that thick.
Though I do find it interesting that your mind went from "fantasy shag" to "sister". I guess it's true what they say about Tasmanians!

sorry there,Mythor : you seem to have misinterpreted my meaning.

Fame or notoriety should have NO relevance at all : under the Law, we should be all the same. It is extremely hard to NOT know if you should be telling Centrelink about any income : they put the classification of income on EVERY fornightly form , and in every pamphlet they produce.

I'm not political, but the truth is, John Howard turned Australia into a nation of wimps and dobbers while in power. The " Guilty until proven innocent " has become the norm ; and I say again, people who rort the system make it very hard for those who didn't to prove their innocence. I thought I made that point very clear ??

Due to the labelling of all welfare recipients as dishonest and untrustworthy by folks like John Howard, Hockey, Hank Jongen, etc, the general public believe that if Centrelink SAY you're a rorter, then you ARE one !! We have challenged this attitude again and again, but WE don't get the media coverage that those got.

Of course everyone who Centrelink accuse of being guilty ARE NOT !! In fact, using the figures supplied by the ANAO , the REALITY is that only .115 % of all welfare recipients are , in fact, rorting the system !! That means that 99.885 % are doing the right thing ....

And yes... we DO liken Centrelink to a Nazi regime ... complete with jackboots and technical genocide .... you take someone's sole income away from them for 8 weeks and tell me HOW they're supposed to survive ?? They've been found guilty by the Ombudsman of conduct OUTSIDE the Australian constitution ... and also guilty of taking actions against customers NOT contained within the Social Security Act.

Maybe I should have structured my original post in a different way ... but I still say if you've done the dirty, you deserve whatever you get.

watchdoggie1951.

Not everyone receives a fortnightly form... And there is a world of difference between wilfully not reporting income (or other money received) and simply forgetting to do so, or thinking it doesn't fall under a category, etc. One is a deliberate flouting of the rules, the other is forgetfulness, naivete or whatever. It may be extremely hard to not know the rules, but that doesn't mean impossible.
And given the fact that you yourself know it is possible for Centrelink to make mistakes, it's entirely possible for someone, such as Ajay, to not have done anything wrong at all and still be in a world of trouble.

And I understood what you said quite well, thanks. What I don't understand is what your tirades have to do with me or my post. You seem to be trying to imply that I'm endorsing rorting the system, when in actuality all I said was that there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Ajay may have broken the rules, but the reality is that reasonable explanations are not necessarily going to cut the mustard with Centrelink.

You may like to think you're not political, but being an Admin on the forums of an anti-Government-Department website would be enough to be considered political by most folk. Just so you know. :)

If you want to continue your political tirades, I suggest you head back to Centreflunk as that's really not what this blog is about. :)

Sorry to disagree with you, but even though I am a sworn enemy of Centrelink and it's screwups, I believe in " if you rort, and get caught, sympathy you'll get nought" !!
Wilfull fraud has NO excuse : whether it be by non-declaration of income or whatever. If you make the decision to not tell them about income, you have NOTHING to whine about if you're caught out.

People who deliberately rort the system make it so much harder for those who don't yet are accused of it to prove themselves innocent. Centrelink use these deliberate rorters to convince the public that ALL welfare recipients are untrustworthy : so if Centrelink accuse you of rorting, it's a natural assumption that you're guilty !!

If she has, then let her face the music for it ; if she hasn't, then fight it out with them.

watchdoggie1951. www.centreflunk.com

sucked in on the snotty fat hippo

You're not disagreeing with me?
I agree that those who engage in deliberate and wilful fraud should be punished to the maximum extent permissible under the law.
But if you genuinely did not know that you had to report to Centrelink that you had received money in some fashion, they can punish you as if you *did* know and wilfully broke the rules. There were even ads trumpeting the "Ignorance is no defense" stance of Centrelink.

Given that the site you're linking to likens Centrelink to a nazi-esque organisation, I'd've thought you'd be the very last person to defend them harassing someone, particularly when the harassment is only occuring many, many years after the alleged breach.
Are you trying to tell me that everyone accused of wronging Centrelink has always been guilty? Or are they only judged guilty before the trial if they're famous?