MoD covertly films hundreds of wounded soldiers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by sunami, Jul 17, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. If they are genuinely injured then they have nothing to worry about. Millions of bluffers in the army.
  2. If true,absolutely no-one can possibly be surprised at this sort of tactic from a morally bankrupt Ministry and its governing administration.Shocked perhaps,but definitely not surprised. :x
  3. Easier than benefit cheats after all. And less of a vote loser!
  4. How true!
  5. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    just when you think you can't get fuced over any more than you already have up pops the unbelievable.

    never mind the fucking outrage bus in what ever form. This needs to be confirmed by the CGS and if proven to be true then it should be gloves off time.

    Its bad enough as a War Pensioner being told I can't have a increase in my pension even though I havent had a review since 1992, but telling lads that they can't be compensated is sickening beyond belief. I've just seen once case of a young lad who is pretty much stone deaf in both ears after a contact in afghanistan being fuced off at the high port and told he cant get a pension. But to threaten to covertly film people is lower than I thought this government could ever be, especially in light of that bloody RAF typist who if I recall correctly recieved over £300K for RSI.

    words cannot really express how sickened and angry I am by the very thought of this. well they probably could but it would just be a string of expletives rising in crescendo and culminating in a slathering incoherant rant.
  6. I investigate all manner of Insurance claims, including theft, arson, income protection, whiplash, trips on loose paving stones etc etc, and do not see any difference between a soldier or a civvie making fraudulent claims.

    The small print of any Insurance Policy will state that a claim may be processed using 3rd Parties (thats me) in order to counter fraud.

    In the case of the MOD the claimant gets a letter explaining exactly that.

    Whats the problem?
  7. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    That is practically the same argument the government uses for its whole cctv campaigns. If youve got nothing to hide then you'll be fine!

    mate I respect you for the job you do, however when you come out with a line like that it makes me thinking you landed on your head last time you jumped out of a herc.

    this isnt about finding out whos genuine or not its about attempting to disuade people from claiming and the use of overt threats to do so. Its how civvies and politicians think.

    its a bridge to bloody far.

    ps. was at the national memrorial the other week, amazing place! paid my respects to your lads from Herric 06.
  8. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    If you can't see it your missing the point.
  9. I don't see the problem with investigating people who are believed to be cheating the system; after all every penny that is fraudently claimed is one less penny to go to genuinely deserving cases. However I agree that they could have got the message out in a slightly more sensitive manner.
  10. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    The point is they won't use it as an investigative tool they will use it as a coersive threat against anyone who claims.

    think this is my 4th post can you tell it makes me more than a little angry?
  11. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    fuck it im going for tabs brb
  12. OK - I read the dailyhate's article with great reluctance and the article published excerpts from the letters concerned:


    I don't see how that is particularly designed to intimidate somebody into not claiming. Granted, I've not seen any of these letters before so I do not know what industry norms are. However, the wording does not seem to me to be out of place in a letter responding to a claim. If you make a claim. I think you can legitimately expect that claim to be investigated. The letter simply makes it clear that the claim may be investigated and that appropriate action will be taken if the claim is suspected to be fraudulent.

    What is the problem with that?
  13. In the vast majority of cases proof of injury will have been documented by military healthcare and eventually NHS treatment if this paper trail isnt sufficient then what is?

    The fact that these snidey civil servants have sent out these letters beggars belief. In most cases people that are claiming are genuine if not it should be picked up at a medical or at rehab. physio. If the MOD fail to approach this in a different and more sensitive manner then they disgust me. I am sure that there are a damn site more injured personnel ( serving and retired ) who are entitled to claim benefits who have never received a penny due to lack of information about injury / illness. Is the MOD going to put any effort into finding out who hasnt put a claim in for injury and explain AFCS to them ?
  14. "The fact that these snidey civil servants have sent out these letters beggars belief"

    How do you know it was the civil service that sent the letters out? The Mail uses MOD to try and seperate it from "our brave boys". For all you know this is a military run thing.

    I find it odd really - 99% of people here despise benefit fraud and want to deal with it strongly. Here we have the MOD taking action against the less than 1% of people who are suspected of defrauding the system, and people are getting uptight. Sorry guys, but if people are ripping the piss out of the system, then thats less money for those who genuinely need it. As the spokesperson noted in the article:

    "If, during the process of determining liability, evidence suggests that a claim has been exaggerated, surveillance may be used to verify details. It is used in less than one per cent of cases and should be of no concern to individuals with a legitimate claim.’

    It also noted that 284 people in 9 years have been subjected to it - thats roughly 31 people per year, and if we assume 284 is 1% of all claimants, then that means that 28,116 people haven't been subjected to surveillance as they weren't suspected of abusing the system.