3 ms·

In this case the misinformation isn't even the attack the mis-informers think it is. Anybody getting payments with this erroneous data is committing fraud beca

In this case the misinformation isn't even the attack the mis-informers think it is. Anybody getting payments with this erroneous data is committing fraud because the choices with that mis-information are that we don't know how old they are. This means they have been 150 years old since they got into the system. That scenario is actually worse than they have been getting payments for some decades after their qualification age.

zimpenfish 2y ago
> This means they have been 150 years old since they got into the system. No, the theory being made was that they appear to be 150 years old because the marker for "unknown DOB" -when queried- comes out as 1875 by default and that wasn't accounted for / known about by the Special Boys given their lack of knowledge around these systems. It's entirely plausible that they look 150 years old (with a badly formed query done in a rush) but there's an "eligibility" section of fields which says they're eligible because they verified their citizenship[0] in 1952 with their military record[1]. Basically doing a query on DOB/age instead of eligibility. Easily done! Just not something to brag about in a press conference before triple-checking that you weren't about to make a massive arsehole out of yourself to the world. [0] Or however it works, I'm from the UK, I don't know. [1] Or equivalent validating document.