Gun Crime and Violent Crime

[Bryan]

Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all.

People I know who work in social services tell a different story. While there certainly is a genuine need, those who are milking and abusing the system are not an insignificant proportion of their caseloads.

[Wild Bill]

People I know who work in social services tell a different story. While there certainly is a genuine need, those who are milking and abusing the system are not an insignificant proportion of their caseloads.

Finally we have begun to mention the realities of the problem!

From the posts in this thread it would appear that most folks are thinking in extremes. They either believe that all crime comes from poor people and the problem is that the system is not generous enough OR they think that ALL welfare is a ripoff!

This makes an honest debate impossible. Each side can drag out examples from the small percentage that represents their point of view while ignoring the REAL situation!

Are some people fit for little else but welfare? Of course! How large a percentage do they represent? Far less than the number of folks on welfare.

Is the welfare system rational and of positive benefit? Well, if your definition of positive is tiding folks over between jobs then it would appear to often be a failure.

The system is so bureaucratic and rule bound that it's hard to see what the real goals are but it sure doesn't look like the goal is to get off welfare!

I remember my high school bus driver, who raised 4 kids on Mother's Allowance, working for free 'cuz her wages were clawed back. She did this because if she went off welfare there would have been a six month period of no benefits for her family before she began to receive them from the bus company. Why could she not have been given a six month benefits extension to help her off welfare?

Meanwhile, welfare provided a small bungalow with no insulation. The heating bills were unbelievable! She offered to install the insulation herself if the system would buy the materials. One bill from the dead of winter would have covered it. The system refused. They don't pay for capital improvements (even though they owned the house) but utilities were not a problem, no matter how high.

This sort of bizarre thinking runs rampant through the welfare system. Why? Partially because it tends to be run by zealots who were always math challenged but more often because of simple empire building!

"Tiding over between jobs"? Look again! There is a large percentage of multigenerational welfare. I personally have seen grandma, mom and teenage daughter ALL on welfare while visiting a dentist's office.

So some folks are so offended by such examples that they want to abolish the system, letting the truly deserving starve, along with the others.

Others refuse to even consider reforming the system, apparently believing that "It is better that a thousand abuses occur than to deny ONE deserving case!"

No wonder things keep getting worse.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Wild Bill

[M.Dancer]

That would be a significant improvement!

Can you tell me how a single unemployable adult can shelter, feed and clothe themselves on $560/mo in Ontario without resorting to petty crime?

That's a simple question with an even simpler answer. Anyone able enough top commit a crime is able enough to get a job. No one unemployable would be able to commit crimes.

[M.Dancer]

There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability.

There is not one person who is too stupid to use a mop. And I know that if a person has a mental illlness (other than chronic laziness) they would be considered disabled.

[Moonbox]

So some folks are so offended by such examples that they want to abolish the system, letting the truly deserving starve, along with the others.

I don't think anyone was saying we should abolish the system. For myself, I think there needs to be massive reform. Welfare, by and large, should be a stop gap measure like EI to rehabilitate people and get them back on track.

If they're going to be sucking society's teat for a lifetime, however, and if they don't have a crippling disability, they should be put to work in the community doing whatever needs to be done. The 'free ride and abuse' part of the system is a double edged problem. I already linked the findings of a study of 40,000 Canadian welfare recipients where 20% were found to be abusing the system. It's NOT an insignificant about.

The people who abuse the system are not only cheating us, the taxpayers, they're also cheating the people who actually DO need the money to support themselves. Every dollar saved from welfare fraud is another one that can go to the legitimate welfare system.

It's so unbelievably easy to make up a disability to milk it's not even funny.

[Argus]

There has been a spree of violent and gun crimes in GTA recently with 3 shootings over a 24-hour period recently.

Of course, there are obvious reactive measures, such as find and punish the responsible.

Togher laws, more jails - that's the American way of dealing with the problem. As we can see in USA it is not very successful.

Should we ressurect social assistance instead? In the last 15 years or so wellfare payments never increased while the cost of living almost doubled. How do we expect the recipients to survive?

Are we not encouraging them to pick up the gun and "make a living" on the streets?

What party is even addressing that in their election platform?

There are a number of major issues involved with lowering violent crime. To start with, most violent crime is commited by repeat offenders. Rarely do cops find out that the drive by shooting, or corner store robbery was commited by someone without any criminal record or known criminal associates. So it seems to me we need to do a better job of keeping tabs on these people, and locking them up for much longer periods of time.

Increasing welfare is not going to cut it with these guys. They're not committing violent crime because they can't afford to buy milk and bread, you know. If they were that poor they wouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place. I've been poor, okay, and I couldn't have come up with hundreds of dollars for a gun.

Criminologists will tell you that deterring crime requires swift, cretain punishment. We don't have that. Even if you're caught we have a long, drawn-out process which could take years and which might wind up with punishment, though it probably won't be particularly severe. Someone arrested for a drive-by on Monday ought to be sentenced by Friday and sent away to do his time by the following Monday unless there's a need for time consuming forensic testing. And I don't mean "time consuming" in that they have to wait in line for six months before the lab can find time to do it either.

BTW, according to Macleans magazines almost all the violent crime in Toronto is commited by Jamaicans. Maybe we ought to consider not bringing over any more Jamaicans? Or is that too complicated.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Argus

[Army Guy]

I think our welfare system across the nation is over due for a major overhaul. it's riddled with problems some of them mentioned here, not enough staff to ensure all recipants are recieving the proper care the need, or to catch those abusing the system, the 20 % figure of those that abuse the system is the ones we know about i'm sure thats alot higher, everyone knows someone who's abused it.....

Most welfare programs do have job placement,or job assistant programs, disability programs etc etc...for those that want it or qualify for it....

and i'm sure Canadians on both side of the fence will agree there is alot more that could be done for those that deserve it...

My sister has abused the welfare system for years, as a single mom of twins , she once told me she could not afford to get off welfare and work as she made more money on the welfare system....She must of taken about 20 courses for different jobs, all payed by you and me, always finding an excuse not to accept a job in that field....and this went on for years, and it was not just my sister, it was all her friends, all taking advantage of the system, and all able bodied people....anyways i developed a bad taste in my mouth when it comes down to welfare recieptants....atleast my sister and her friends...

Had the system been tougher, had more hands on, with my sister i sure she would not have lasted as long as she did...

The key is Assistance, to assist you in your time of need, no where does it say support you, or provide for you....it says assist....Sorry but there are millions of Canadians that go thru some hard times and crawl there way out....for those that abuse the system they should be charge with something under the criminal code, then drug down to those that really are in need of assistance and ordered to perform community service...maybe repairing homes, cleaning up nieborhoods....

[PoliticalCitizen]

That would be a significant improvement!

Can you tell me how a single unemployable adult can shelter, feed and clothe themselves on $560/mo in Ontario without resorting to petty crime?

People who complain about 'welfare' should learn more about what the rates are, how people cope who are on welfare.

In fact, 80% of those receiving benefits, mostly younger ones, do so for less than two years, and use it as a 'hand up'.

However, a laid-off 55 year old with no marketable skills and some health issues (not enough to get disability) has little other recourse but the extreme poverty provided by welfare, and petty crime.

I totally agree with tango.

I'd say with today prices the minimum wellfare amount should be 1 Gran / month. Anything less than that and you're pushing the person to live on the street (they get more money that way as they don't have to pay rent) or to find a cash job (which is not declared as income) or to commit some petty crimes.

Of course, once they get used to petty crimes they can move on to something more rewarding... unless of course they were born into families with illegal traditions and then the choice is clear right away.

[PoliticalCitizen]

In Ontario, the monthly benefit is around $1,000. plus allowances for special needs such as dietary restrictions.

But the wellfare is around $500, which gets you exactly nowhere...

[PoliticalCitizen]

I remember my high school bus driver, who raised 4 kids on Mother's Allowance, working for free 'cuz her wages were clawed back. She did this because if she went off welfare there would have been a six month period of no benefits for her family before she began to receive them from the bus company. Why could she not have been given a six month benefits extension to help her off welfare?

Meanwhile, welfare provided a small bungalow with no insulation. The heating bills were unbelievable! She offered to install the insulation herself if the system would buy the materials. One bill from the dead of winter would have covered it. The system refused. They don't pay for capital improvements (even though they owned the house) but utilities were not a problem, no matter how high.

This sort of bizarre thinking runs rampant through the welfare system. Why? Partially because it tends to be run by zealots who were always math challenged but more often because of simple empire building!

Wow, that's one sad story, Bill...

One of my friends got divorced via trial and got shelter with her 2 kids. She pretty much has to do most repairs herself. She also works - but I'm not sure how big of a salary portion she is allowed to keep...

[PoliticalCitizen]

There are a number of major issues involved with lowering violent crime. To start with, most violent crime is commited by repeat offenders. Rarely do cops find out that the drive by shooting, or corner store robbery was commited by someone without any criminal record or known criminal associates. So it seems to me we need to do a better job of keeping tabs on these people, and locking them up for much longer periods of time.

Increasing welfare is not going to cut it with these guys. They're not committing violent crime because they can't afford to buy milk and bread, you know. If they were that poor they wouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place. I've been poor, okay, and I couldn't have come up with hundreds of dollars for a gun.

Criminologists will tell you that deterring crime requires swift, cretain punishment. We don't have that. Even if you're caught we have a long, drawn-out process which could take years and which might wind up with punishment, though it probably won't be particularly severe. Someone arrested for a drive-by on Monday ought to be sentenced by Friday and sent away to do his time by the following Monday unless there's a need for time consuming forensic testing. And I don't mean "time consuming" in that they have to wait in line for six months before the lab can find time to do it either.

BTW, according to Macleans magazines almost all the violent crime in Toronto is commited by Jamaicans. Maybe we ought to consider not bringing over any more Jamaicans? Or is that too complicated.

Locking people up is hardly an answer. If you pursue this path you'll end up in a police state where the crime indeed will be very low but then nobody will really be free (not even on parole). That is precisely the way US is going right now. More patriotism and less freedoms at the same time...

The jail institution has proven a failure GLOBALLY - if the intent indeed was to have a "Correctional" facility. The prison today is a punitive institution to some and recreational to others...

There must be a better way to deal with the criminals.

But the best approach to the problem in general is to address the root cause - poverty. Once a person is relatively OK with their food, living conditions and freedom they will be more complacent and less likely to break the law (unless it's some silly ganja law).

Edited September 23, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[tango]

I don't think anyone was saying we should abolish the system. For myself, I think there needs to be massive reform. Welfare, by and large, should be a stop gap measure like EI to rehabilitate people and get them back on track.

If they're going to be sucking society's teat for a lifetime, however, and if they don't have a crippling disability, they should be put to work in the community doing whatever needs to be done. The 'free ride and abuse' part of the system is a double edged problem. I already linked the findings of a study of 40,000 Canadian welfare recipients where 20% were found to be abusing the system. It's NOT an insignificant about.

You linked to a study that said there was "error or abuse" in 20% of cases. However, "errors" are made by the caseworkers and do not indicate abuse. They did not separate these two causes. It does not prove what you claim.

You still have not provided information about what the rate of "abuse" is.

The people who abuse the system are not only cheating us, the taxpayers, they're also cheating the people who actually DO need the money to support themselves. Every dollar saved from welfare fraud is another one that can go to the legitimate welfare system.

It's so unbelievably easy to make up a disability to milk it's not even funny.

Well, I suggest you try it then. It is unbelievably difficult to get disability, especially for people with 'hidden' disabilities that are not obvious to others.

I have a friend with ms. She takes very good care of herself (eating, sleeping, etc) so that she is able to go out and socialize once a week. However, some of those she socializes with think she is ripping off disability because "she seems fine".

Those of you who stand in judgment of people with hidden disabilities should stand in their shoes sometime.

And those of you who know 'welfare cheats' should hire them!

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Army Guy]

Last year over 1.7 million people in Canada were on welfare. either way you slice it, 20%, 10 % or even 1 %, i think she has a piont it's alot of money that could be diverted into those cases that need it...

welfare.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I think our welfare system across the nation is over due for a major overhaul. it's riddled with problems some of them mentioned here, not enough staff to ensure all recipants are recieving the proper care the need, or to catch those abusing the system, the 20 % figure of those that abuse the system is the ones we know about i'm sure thats alot higher, everyone knows someone who's abused it.....

Most welfare programs do have job placement,or job assistant programs, disability programs etc etc...for those that want it or qualify for it....

and i'm sure Canadians on both side of the fence will agree there is alot more that could be done for those that deserve it...

My sister has abused the welfare system for years, as a single mom of twins , she once told me she could not afford to get off welfare and work as she made more money on the welfare system....She must of taken about 20 courses for different jobs, all payed by you and me, always finding an excuse not to accept a job in that field....and this went on for years, and it was not just my sister, it was all her friends, all taking advantage of the system, and all able bodied people....anyways i developed a bad taste in my mouth when it comes down to welfare recieptants....atleast my sister and her friends...

Had the system been tougher, had more hands on, with my sister i sure she would not have lasted as long as she did...

The key is Assistance, to assist you in your time of need, no where does it say support you, or provide for you....it says assist....Sorry but there are millions of Canadians that go thru some hard times and crawl there way out....for those that abuse the system they should be charge with something under the criminal code, then drug down to those that really are in need of assistance and ordered to perform community service...maybe repairing homes, cleaning up nieborhoods....

Hey AG,

I understand your attitude and have some exposure to the social layer you've described - the chronic welfare recipients...

Now our approach as a society to such a layer within our midst could be trying to squeeze them out of the cozy nests and force to take on a job by lowering or not increasing welfare amount over 15-20 years. But we have to keep in mind that some of those sqeezed out will be forced into a range of illegal activities ranging from credit card fraud to murder.

The other approach we could take - one I prefer - is to pay them MORE.

Yes I know it's our tax money. But I'd rather give it to the poor (and maybe lazy) people who at least MULTIPLY and contribute to the economy of my country by spending and to the population of my country by increasing it, than to give same amounts of money as credits and grants to US and other foreign companies.

I do not believe in trickle-down economy - you give the rich money and the money ends up in offshore accounts.

But give the poor money and they WILL buy stuff in the stores...

I guess it sounds socialist but it does work in many European countries...

[tango]

Last year over 1.7 million people in Canada were on welfare. either way you slice it, 20%, 10 % or even 1 %, i think she has a piont it's alot of money that could be diverted into those cases that need it...

welfare.

Last year, there were more than 1.7 million people drawing welfare in Canada, over 5 percent of the population. Most of them, reports Welfare Incomes 2004, lived on incomes well below what the government itself calls the poverty line, despite Canada being one of the richest countries on the globe.

...

That the real (after-inflation) value of welfare benefits has been allowed to fall sharply, ever further below the poverty line, cannot be viewed merely as an oversight on the part of government. It is a deliberate social policy aimed at using extreme poverty to force the poor into low-wage, dead-end jobs and to undermine the wages and social standing of the working class in general.

...

Perhaps the most revealing and damning statistics in Welfare Incomes 2004 are those that show welfare rates relative to the poverty line as determined by the federal government. Nowhere in Canada does welfare currently provide for more than half of the income necessary to rise above the poverty line.

Single people deemed employable have suffered the greatest drop in their welfare incomes, as a result of benefit cuts of up to 25 percent imposed by seven of the ten provinces.

Another alarming statistic is the drop in welfare income for people with disabilities. In eight provinces, the incomes of welfare recipients with disabilities have plummeted over 20 percent from their peak more than a decade ago.

The 'business class' began attacking the poor when their fortunes fell in the 90's (due to their own shortsightedness, I will add). The attacks on the poor have not stopped since, and have resulted in benefits that are not sufficient to support people.

You cannot work, or learn in school, with only kraft dinner for fuel.

-edit to add-

Just found this estimate:

Penalties for welfare fraud have always existed and could be prosecuted as an offence under criminal law. There is no evidence to suggest that workfare programs deter fraud or abuse. Furthermore, it is estimated that welfare fraud is about 2 to 3% of the caseload.

Not the 20% bandied about here, which includes case worker errors (apparently 17-18%)

http://www.cdhalton.ca/publications/sara/section_2.htm

On topic ... Gun Crime ... it isn't about the adults. It's about the kids growing up on welfare. Crime prevention requires that they be fed, rested, sheltered, clothed and able to learn in school to prevent crime in the future.

Current welfare/workfare rates do not provide adequate care for kids. If you grow up angry at the system for shortchanging you on food, poorly developed due to malnourishment, poorly educated due to hunger interfering with learning ... crime may follow.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Moonbox]

You linked to a study that said there was "error or abuse" in 20% of cases. However, "errors" are made by the caseworkers and do not indicate abuse. They did not separate these two causes. It does not prove what you claim.

You still have not provided information about what the rate of "abuse" is.

If you can provide a citation where it says 'errors' are on the part of caseworkers please link it here. The summary I read of this study explained that 'errors' were instances where welfare was being overpaid or wrongfully provided but investigators could not prove there had been intentional abuse. Either way the study, although over 10 years old, shows you how many people are getting it that shouldn't.

I have a friend with ms. She takes very good care of herself (eating, sleeping, etc) so that she is able to go out and socialize once a week. However, some of those she socializes with think she is ripping off disability because "she seems fine".

Well shame on them if she has MS. That's not really something you can just 'make up' and get a doctor's note for. I would say that falls under the 'legitimate' category.

Those of you who stand in judgment of people with hidden disabilities should stand in their shoes sometime.

It all depends on what that disability really is. If it's something that makes it so they legitimately cannot work, then we owe it to them to at least keep them alive and healthy. If it's a simple matter of being too lazy for work, or being unemployable, then they need to be PUT to work in the community otherwise they get nothing.

And those of you who know 'welfare cheats' should hire them!

I don't own my own business but I wouldn't mind if they mowed my lawn or shovelled my snow. I am paying to support them you know.

[kengs333]

As far as I'm concerned a welfare recipient deserves nothing more than what they need to survive. They should receive what they need to feed, shelter and clothe their families. They are effectively leaching from society and unless they're missing limbs or developmentally disabled the money they get should only be what's needed to keep alive.

Most people on welfare don't receive enough to get by, so basically you are just advocating for an increase in welfare then?

Actually, people on welfare are probably not "leaching" all that much from society given that people on welfare tend to spend their money locally and probably are keeping local businesses in poor areas of a respective city from going under, hence creating American-style ghettos of utter poverty and dispair.

Moreover, most people on welfare if truly physically capable would gladly work if suitable work was available, but in Ontario, for instance, so many manufacturing and industrial jobs have been exported overseas, that it's becoming much more difficult to find work. Our economy can't simply function as a service industry, and not everyone is suited for that kind of work. Moreover, enough research has been conducted to show that increased poverty is a necessary and deliberate product of a capitalistic economic system. If you support a party that supports free market capitalism then you are supporting a government that tacitly approves of the kind of poverty and hence welfare "leaching" that you complain about. Of course you'll deny this given the limited scope of your ideological worldview.

[kengs333]

The U.S. has a greater difference between high and low income earners than Canada has (as measured by the Gini index). Yet the rate of property crime in the U.S. is about the same (or lower) than that of Canada.

So much for your claim of 'economic disparity' being the cause.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ields/2172.html

Ever heard of a concept called logic? When making an argument, in order for it to be valid it has to present a logical relationship between evidence and conclusion.

Your assertion that there is higher economic disparity in the US as opposed to Canada with your apparent claim that you've disproved it ("So much for...") is not valid. Why? Well, your claim that "the rate of property crime... is about the same (or lower)" is:

a) inconsistant with the OP, who referred to violent and gun crime.

you provide no supporting facts/statistics

c) you assume that because you say it is so, it is the truth

Ummm... wait a second... are you refering to Richard Dawkings, Pro-evolutionary speaker/author?

If you're somehow making the claim that a lack of 'christian' morals is partly to blame for the breakdown in society, keep in mind that the percentage of athiests in U.S. jails is smaller than the number you'd expect.

Dawkins, with no "g".

I'd ask you for evidence, but we've already seen how you operate.

[Argus]

Locking people up is hardly an answer.

Certainly it's an answer, even if not the one you want. For some people it's the ONLY answer. What would you do with Paul Bernardo and his ilk?

But the best approach to the problem in general is to address the root cause - poverty.

Poverty is not the root cause of why someone machineguns another guy standing in front of a corner grocery. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Poverty is not the root cause of why someone rapes women. Poverty is not the root cause of why a gang would beat and kick someone to death just for fun.

Once a person is relatively OK with their food, living conditions and freedom they will be more complacent and less likely to break the law (unless it's some silly ganja law).

As was pointed out in another thread recently, our welfare recipients tend to have big screen TVs, stereos, cars, cell phones, and bigger houses than your average European. The punks living on welfare in Canada are living like kings compared to their brethren living in Jamaica and Somalia.

[tango]

If you can provide a citation where it says 'errors' are on the part of caseworkers please link it here. The summary I read of this study explained that 'errors' were instances where welfare was being overpaid or wrongfully provided but investigators could not prove there had been intentional abuse. Either way the study, although over 10 years old, shows you how many people are getting it that shouldn't.

See info provided above re abuse rate of 2-3%. (I guess caseworkers overpay by mistake 17-18% of the time)

Well shame on them if she has MS. That's not really something you can just 'make up' and get a doctor's note for. I would say that falls under the 'legitimate' category.

It all depends on what that disability really is. If it's something that makes it so they legitimately cannot work, then we owe it to them to at least keep them alive and healthy. If it's a simple matter of being too lazy for work, or being unemployable, then they need to be PUT to work in the community otherwise they get nothing.

I don't own my own business but I wouldn't mind if they mowed my lawn or shovelled my snow. I am paying to support them you know.

That's my point: Some people (like you) think there are all these non-disabled people ripping off the system. You have no friggen idea how hard it is to get disability even if you are disabled. Also, it is people like you who look at people like my friend and assume she's "ripping off' the system because "She looks fine to me". They think she's just "too lazy to work".

Point being ... members of the public are not in a position to judge the disabilities of others, and should stop suggesting that disabled people are ripping off the system.

Walk in their shoes before making quick, ill-informed judgments.

"Too lazy to work" ?? ... Prove it!

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Argus]

Last year over 1.7 million people in Canada were on welfare. either way you slice it, 20%, 10 % or even 1 %, i think she has a piont it's alot of money that could be diverted into those cases that need it...

welfare.

It is a basic element of human nature that if you offer a free ride a certain number of people are going to take it. The more comfortable the ride, the more people will be tempted, the easier you make it to hop aboard, the more will do so. Double the amount we pay in welfare and you haven't merely doubled your costs, you've doubled the number of people who will immediately put themselves on welfare. That's the problem with making life comfortable for those on welfare.

[PoliticalCitizen]

If you can provide a citation where it says 'errors' are on the part of caseworkers please link it here. The summary I read of this study explained that 'errors' were instances where welfare was being overpaid or wrongfully provided but investigators could not prove there had been intentional abuse. Either way the study, although over 10 years old, shows you how many people are getting it that shouldn't.

Are there similar studies showing how many people that deserved welfare didn't get it?

What about EI? I read somewhere that in Ontario only 20% of the EI pool is used for its original purposes, the rest (80%) pocketed by the government just as another tax.

Welfare people shoveling your driveway?

What about General Motors' or ExxonMobil's CEOs - should they be shoveling our driveways too?

I'm sure they're getting more of our money than the welfare recipients...

[tango]

It is a basic element of human nature that if you offer a free ride a certain number of people are going to take it. The more comfortable the ride, the more people will be tempted, the easier you make it to hop aboard, the more will do so. Double the amount we pay in welfare and you haven't merely doubled your costs, you've doubled the number of people who will immediately put themselves on welfare. That's the problem with making life comfortable for those on welfare.

You make the arrogant assumption that others are out to rip off the system, but not you.

Prove it!!

Hire the people on welfare.

[kengs333]

I agree with you there, and I especially like "drunken pill head from Rosedale"

(But I entirely disapprove of your previous racist post.)

The problem is, however, undeniably coming from the black community, and getting worse in a city that is now about 50% foreign born.

[tango]

As was pointed out in another thread recently, our welfare recipients tend to have big screen TVs, stereos, cars, cell phones, and bigger houses than your average European.

These are urbaqn myths created to allow the money class to continue to rip off the poor.

Prove any of these claims, please.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango