Disabled by grenade - soldier fights for his benefits

[Dic Penderyn]

The guy has not had some sort of miraculous cure he has merely been enabled to control better his bowel and urinary functions alleviating his incontinence to a degree he still requires help with the normal things.

[neurochick]

I certainly didn't suggest he had, had a miraculous cure in my post if you were referring to what I wrote.

The police investigation would have happened because insurance fraud and benefit fraud are both criminal activities.  If there was reasonable cause to believe that he had made a fraudulent claim in either case, that is where the police involvement would come in. 

[Dic Penderyn]

I was not referring to any post in particular just that being able to control when you defecate may be considered a big plus for a person but does not necessarily mean he needs less care as to the involvement of the police I was asking a question not making a statement for the police to be involved they have to be alerted to the possibility of a crime I just wondered by whom the insurers or the DWP if by the DWP surely he should have had an interview under caution not be placed under covert observation did they watch him while he had a crap to make sure he could not get on or off the toilet unassisted or what.

[neurochick]

You seem really angry in your posts.  I don't know why you seem to be so irritated by this story or various posts. 

I'm going to bow out of this thread.  I don't need to feel quite so jumped upon for expressing a valid opinion or explaining why police could be involved.  I don't entirely appreciate your rather aggressive language. I don't think it's necessary in order to get your views across.

[KizzyKazaer]

Sometimes if we feel particularly strongly about an issue, for whatever reason (it might have affected us directly or someone we cared about, for instance?) it can influence the way we express our views about it and we may come across as having an 'edge' to our tone - which is not actually intended as a personal attack against anyone in particular, but might be received as such.

I honestly don't think SinisterJohn was 'getting at you' in any way, Neurochick, rather more at the 'subject matter'; ie his irritation was aimed at the idea of police investigations in this case rather than you for expanding on that aspect of the topic.  I hope you can both continue to contribute to this thread if so wished, after all, this is the place for debating!

[Sunshine Meadows]

Sorry about the slowness and time outs, the server can be like that at weekends.

One tip is rather than refreshing the page click back a page using the arrows at the top of the browser screen. In my experience it often takes me back to the page where i was writing my post and the text is there. Other methods already mentioned are useful too.

I can see how the thread topic and details could have brought emotional responses, maybe we can give it another try tomorrow.
Kizzy  >thumbsup<

[Sunshine Meadows]

The insurance company was due to pay out on total disability, I think this means unable to work at all whether it be in the claimants original occupation or something else they can do with help or training. It does look like the soldier had little or no bowel or bladder control, but then after he had the surgery he then got some control back

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-13763414 (quoted in the Guardian article.

Mr Douglas said: "It has given me back my independence and my freedom."

But assessors from the department have stopped a £70 monthly allowance to Douglas's wife, Maria, for help with his "bathing and toileting difficulties" after in effect accusing him, he says, of "faking" his injuries. The DWP said he had failed to inform them of a "change in circumstances", essentially that his health had improved.

We have to be careful when we read stuff like this because the soldier is using words like faking it and not the DWP. I know being investigated by the police, the insurance company and the DWP does show that they question or dont believe new circumstances are sufficient for his claim. We dont know enough information ourselves to work that one out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/24/disabled-grenade-soldier-benefits

Despite his failed appeal, Douglas continued to pursue his case with Scottish Widows. It then put him under surveillance, apparently suspicious after learning he had set up the charity and was working as an administrator at a local primary care trust.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-13763414

Mr Douglas said since the operation he had regained his dignity and it had made "immeasurable changes" to his life.

"I have got most of my life back now. I don't have to think too hard about what I'm going to do and where I'm going to do it," he said.

"Even my children can see that Daddy is getting better. It's having an impact on everybody's life.".

The BBC article was written on 14 June 2011 and did change my initial view of things.

To me it sounds like the change in circumstances and also the fact the soldier was pursuing his case with Scottish Widows after a failed appeal, caused his new circumstances to be investigated.

I am not saying the system is fair - we know it is not, but it does say change in circumstances must be reported and if you are going to be quoted in a BBC article saying your life is much better after treatment of a condition you have to expected to have a ? over your claim.

Whether or not a person should be expected to work or considered not to be totally disabled when they have impaired (not complete loss) of bowel and bladder function is more a topic for a new thread.

This is just my take on things.