MoD spies on heroes wounded in battle: Hundreds seeking compensation are filmed covertly to see if t

By Matthew Hickley
Last updated at 11:06 PM on 17th July 2009


Wounded soldiers seeking compensation for their injuries are being secretly filmed to check whether they are lying about their condition.

The Ministry of Defence has ordered its legal teams to make use of ‘Big Brother’ undercover spying powers originally drawn up to deal with counter-terrorism.

All injured servicemen and women claiming compensation from the MoD have been sent letters via their solicitors threatening them with ‘covert surveillance’.

They are warned that their case will be ‘passed to the MoD police’ to consider prosecution if there is suspicion of fraud.

Yesterday the ministry confirmed that since 2000 it had carried out such surveillance on almost 300 injured personnel who sought damages through the civil courts.

The disclosure sparked astonishment and outrage.

Senior military commanders, MPs and campaigners said it was a ‘national disgrace’ and demanded to know why ministers had sanctioned such treatment of soldiers who risked their lives in wars, and paid a terrible price in physical and mental trauma.

Wounded soldiers voiced disgust at what they saw as intimidatory tactics designed to frighten mentally traumatised claimants into dropping their cases.

One former soldier who was left physically and mentally shattered by a mortar bomb in Basra said his warning letter had left him feeling ‘like a benefits cheat’ instead of a once-proud soldier, and that he now struggled to gather the confidence to leave his home.

Wounded soldiers seeking compensation for their injuries are being secretly filmed to check whether they are lying about their condition.

The Ministry of Defence has ordered its legal teams to make use of ‘Big Brother’ undercover spying powers originally drawn up to deal with counter-terrorism.

All injured servicemen and women claiming compensation from the MoD have been sent letters via their solicitors threatening them with ‘covert surveillance’.

They are warned that their case will be ‘passed to the MoD police’ to consider prosecution if there is suspicion of fraud.

Yesterday the ministry confirmed that since 2000 it had carried out such surveillance on almost 300 injured personnel who sought damages through the civil courts.

The disclosure sparked astonishment and outrage.

Senior military commanders, MPs and campaigners said it was a ‘national disgrace’ and demanded to know why ministers had sanctioned such treatment of soldiers who risked their lives in wars, and paid a terrible price in physical and mental trauma.

Wounded soldiers voiced disgust at what they saw as intimidatory tactics designed to frighten mentally traumatised claimants into dropping their cases.

One former soldier who was left physically and mentally shattered by a mortar bomb in Basra said his warning letter had left him feeling ‘like a benefits cheat’ instead of a once-proud soldier, and that he now struggled to gather the confidence to leave his home.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Anyone for gangstalking in the UK?

Powers available include videoing suspects in secret, bugging conversations with them, scanning their telephone records and even recruiting neighbours or colleagues to act as ‘intelligence sources’.

There you have it; you sign up to fight for your country then you get wounded and become a suspect targeted for covert surveillance. The sucker punch is that your neighbours will be recruited to monitor you and thus stripping you of any honour you feel that you are entitled.

Now if your neighbours know the full story, that is that you fought for your country, claim that you got wounded and are claiming compensation, I think everyone would support you.

So how does this state apparatus over come the natural decency of people? Through slander and insinuation. The authorities will say that you might be a shirker, a cheat, a liar and they want evidence. Most people being linear thinkers will want to help out especially if they will get paid or have favours and the wounded soldier will get gangstalked by his neighbours. Maybe these neighbours have known this soldier since he was a small boy and refuse to get involved?

No problem. The authorities have a net of informers consisting of drug dealers, drug addicts and petty criminals and the gangstalking is still on. If that doesn't work, there are always local private investigators on retainers available.

You see, all this is about control and money so the surveillance needs to be done cheaply. What's a life worth.

Rule Britannia!



[edit on 093131p://am3123 by masonwatcher]

It is a common tactic used by insurance companies. The things they find are often times true.





With the amount of money being paid out, it is a worthwhile investment to see if the claims are actually worth it.

Sometimes they aren't I am not saying that every insurance claim is a scam. But some are. And so the MoD would be wise to investigate.

reply to post by whatukno


Insurance companies are private institutions and not a state organ. You don't have to sign up to an insurance company if you don't like their terms and conditions.

reply to post by masonwatcher


I know I am often ignorant in British stuff. But to my knowledge you don't have to sign up for the military either. Am I right? You volunteer. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that EVERYONE wounded in combat is faking it. But there is the possibility that some are.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by masonwatcher

 

I know I am often ignorant in British stuff. But to my knowledge you don't have to sign up for the military either. Am I right? You volunteer. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that EVERYONE wounded in combat is faking it. But there is the possibility that some are.

Joining up to the military is a job with no term and conditions that supersedes human rights. Being wounded on the course of duties entails responsibilities with the employer. This is even more of a liability when the employer is the state.

You confuse commercial contract law with civil rights.

reply to post by masonwatcher


What you said is true. But the state does have a responsibility to the taxpayer to investigate allegations of fraud right? This is the point I was trying to make. They must investigate allegations of fraud. This protects the taxpayer.

Say soldier A and soldier B are in combat. Soldier A get's his legs blown off by a RPG. Pretty good chance he's not faking that one.

Soldier B however goes home complaining of post traumatic stress and get's disability for that condition. Now, does the MoD simply believe his story, or do they perform an investigation from time to time to see if he is ok or is really traumatized by his war experience?

This again is another example of why we need to revoke all of the laws enacted to combat terrorism by granting government unlimited powers at their whim and without accountability, and return instead to a society of laws, principles and rights.

There is a real and present danger from terrorist groups, especially when you combine access to nuclear weapons supplied by international criminal gangs and adherence to religious ideologies that insist that God wants his followers to kill the non-believers or bring about the end of the earth. But revoking the foundational rights of individuals in our society is not the way to stop these people. Aside from the fact that it so far has been a disaster in implementation.

What is needed are small, very highly trained, well financed and equipped groups that operate in secret and who have the authority to do whatever it takes to hunt down and neutralize terrorists. However, these groups must have a clear mission statement and be under strict oversight to ensure that they don't go off mission. That means that an anti-terrorism group should be able to search a suspects computer, for example, without his knowledge and without a warrant. BUT, anything they find that is not related to the mission is to be ignored, even if it relates to child pornography, drug dealing, money laundering or holding non traditional ideas -- no matter how tempting it is to use this as an easy way to do criminal investigations.

What we have seen is exactly what is reported in this thread -- anti terrorism laws used to circumvent civil liberties to make a criminal investigation easier by not having to follow those pesky rules of evidence and nasty civil rights. I recall one case cited in the US where the Patriot Act was used to gather evidence against someone producing counterfeit infant formula. It seems that legal authorities, instead of doing the hard work, just decide that by saying "terrorism" (or to a lesser degree "Kiddie porn") get to do whatever they want without accountability or oversight. While most police officers I know do take their role seriously and see themselves as those who "serve and protect" and respect the rights of the citizens they serve, there is always a minority who are abusive and see themselves as in the role of "to enforce and intimidate" and really don't care about whatever damage, injuring or suffering they may cause to anyone.

The same set of anti-terrorism laws also allows those in power at the top to use this convenience to hide and cover up their own corruption.. witness the bush administration's use of the Patriot Act to have Quakers arrested for peaceful war protests to be declared dangerous and violent on the FBI list used by Canada customs to decided on who should be allowed to enter Canada.,

The role of the police and courts in the tradition of western democracies has been and should be to protect the members of the society from both other members of that society that seek to prey on them and the abuses of the state perpetrated upon them. The blanket anti-terrorism laws have given a "get out out of jail free" card to those who do not have the dedication and honor to conduct themselves in the tradition of true public servants.





[edit on 18-7-2009 by metamagic]

reply to post by whatukno

Soldier B however goes home complaining of post traumatic stress and get's disability for that condition. Now, does the MoD simply believe his story, or do they perform an investigation from time to time to see if he is ok or is really traumatized by his war experience?

It is in the tax payer's interest that soldiers put in harms way are looked after. Put it this way, I am a British tax payer, Muslim and against these wars but I am offended at how British soldiers are being treated in Britain. What do you think the vast majority of the British tax payers are going to think?

As for establishing a soldier's claim of PTS, experts ought to examine what a soldiers has experienced. They have records of his activities and psychologist evaluations to make decisions.

From my understanding PTS includes physical manifestations that can be detected. They can hook up a claimant to an eeg machine while the sufferer is asleep, plug a portable sensor on him while he goes about in civil life and note the problems. Very easy to establish PTS.

This snooping an surveillance is an infrastructure that has been built up in the past 10 years and is being used on everyone including returning soldiers that the state does not trust. Penny pinching is a side issue.

Its nice to see that the scarce amount of money available at the moment is being wasted on this sort of rubbish when it could be used so much more effectively. Seems to be the trademark of this government.

Here is an idea, how about we stop spending money on crap exercises like this and spend it on our armed forces. Then maybe our troops would actually be able to use safe vehicles and have enough helicopters meaning less injured soldiers to be filmed by the MOD and more importantly less dead.

after seeing this why would anyone want to join the military??? to fight for the elite? and the corporations? your not fighting for your country anymore..... Its for other interests... and when hurt look at the treatment they get? very sad

And what do you expect from a Government that did not give our troops fighting all the equipment they require to do the job and then we get a Prime Minister who does not answer this question but gives sound bites.

And this all comes down to one thing. MONEY!!!

Our Government would rather spend the time and effort going after our military who have been wounded while servicing rather that they devote this funding to going after those cheating on benefits.

An easy target to go after.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


It all comes down to the faked dossier. It is about constructing an infrastructure to protect dangerous people and it is now being used against every one including those who have shed their blood for their country.

This isn't the worst idea ever. I know someone who got the tips of his toes blown off in Afghanistan, got £20,000 compensation and gets a paycheck each month for his "disability".

This is the same person that has topped the local sunday league football goal scoring tables for the last couple of years!

reply to post by CRB86


Maybe the rules should be tightened instead of snooping around. I have seen war amputees playing basketball in wheelchairs. So what is your point?

Why are servicemen automatically heroes if they get injured on duty ??

Most injuries occur outside theatre as a result of accidents, arguably because most service personnel are of below average intelligence & can't be trusted with anything more complicated than a hammer.

They're not called grunts for nothing.

reply to post by masonwatcher



My point is that he's not very disabled if he's playing up-front for the Dog & Pheasant, despite claiming government (read: taxpayer) money for being such.

The point about wheelchair basketball is incredibly fatuous.

Originally posted by Ulala
Why are servicemen automatically heroes if they get injured on duty ??

Most injuries occur outside theatre as a result of accidents, arguably because most service personnel are of below average intelligence & can't be trusted with anything more complicated than a hammer.

They're not called grunts for nothing.

That is all wrong and a stereotype. They are heroes because they are putting their lives on the line.

Originally posted by Ulala
Why are servicemen automatically heroes if they get injured on duty ??

Most injuries occur outside theatre as a result of accidents, arguably because most service personnel are of below average intelligence & can't be trusted with anything more complicated than a hammer.

They're not called grunts for nothing.

Most front line soldiers are young, usually aged 18 to 22. They are selected to fight in the front lines because of their fitness and mentalities. They not stupid, just not conceited enough to question orders.

I saw a documentary called Battle School in the UK. The training was an insight on how battles are fought. I noted that the NCOs and officers constantly barking orders to privates to attack on the left and on the right. The officers and NCOs stayed put behind cover while the soldiers push forward.

If mums knew what their sons went through in wars, there would be no more wars.

[edit on 013131p://pm3112 by masonwatcher]

Same type of thing happened to a friends relative he served in the British army and injured has back badly, Apparently he was going for a walk and was followed by two men in suits in a tinted out windowed car recording him

reply to post by jonny2410


Spot one jonny2410. They are heroes because they serve and Ulala, learn to read posts.

I spoke about serving, not being on active service. Service people injuries as a result of fighting or training, to me, there is no difference.