This was in the Times

Fraud investigation into £7.5bn sick miners' fund
By Andrew Norfolk



FRAUD squad detectives are opening a criminal inquiry into a miners’ union that has earned millions of pounds from the world’s largest personal injury compensation scheme, The Times has learnt.
The investigation will focus on how senior officials and employees at the Union of Democratic Mineworkers benefited from a £7.5 billion programme set up by the Department of Trade and Industry to compensate sick miners.



Preliminary inquiries into the finances of the UDM and a company owned by one of its employees began after concerns were raised by the Law Society. Detectives uncovered an extraordinary story of rags to riches. Inside a union with only 1,332 members was a world of luxury cars, personalised number-plates, extravagant hospitality and expensive property purchases.

The Times has learnt that a judge has now granted detectives an order to obtain confidential documents relating to the relationship between a solicitors’ firm and two companies associated with the UDM.

A full criminal inquiry, announced last night, will look at the finances of Mick Stevens, the UDM vice-president, and Clare Walker, who is head of claims at a company called Vendside, wholly owned by the union, which was set up to handle compensation claims.

Miss Walker, 41, who used to work for a company that polices claims for the DTI, is understood to have earned £260,000 last year — including a £200,000 bonus — for a 20-hour week at Vendside. She has an £110,000 Bentley and a £61,000 company BMW.

The scheme was launched by the Government in 1999 after British Coal lost a test case over two illnesses caused by miners working underground — chronic lung disease and vibration white finger.

The DTI entered an agreement with some 700 solicitors’ firms to handle claims. The DTI would pay the solicitors’ legal costs when each claim was settled. In the same year the Government reached a separate agreement with the UDM and Vendside, which is run by Mr Stevens and Neil Greatrex. It was to be allowed to handle claims on a “no win, no fee” basis without outside lawyers.

Vendside has since received £19 million in costs paid by the DTI for thousands of claims settled in-house by staff who are not legally trained, bringing the UDM — which split from the National Union of Mineworkers during the 1984 strike — pre-tax profits of £6.3 million.

In addition, the UDM/Vendside has passed on more than 10,000 registered cases — typically those where “complicated legal issues need to be dealt with”, according to the union — to be processed by solicitors’ firms, which have earned a total of £25 million from them.

The fraud squad is understood to be principally interested in how claims were divided up between Vendside and the solicitors’ firms, two of which have made payments to a company called Indiclaim, which is wholly owned by Miss Walker and has no official connection to the UDM.

In a letter seen by The Times, sent to UDM claimants last summer, Wake Smith, a Sheffield firm of solicitors, said that on the successful conclusion of the case it would “make a payment of either £100 or £300 plus VAT, out of our fees (which as you know are paid by the DTI and not you), to the marketing arm of the UDM (Indiclaim Ltd)”.

The solicitors explain that this is “to help to cover the marketing, administrative costs of investigation, continued support of claims and to raise miners’ . . . awareness of compensation”.

Yesterday Wake Smith told The Times that describing Indiclaim as the marketing arm of the UDM had been a mistake.

Beresfords, a firm of solicitors based in Doncaster, told The Times that in 2001 it was instructed by Mr Stevens to pay to Miss Walker’s company fees that had previously gone to Vendside.

Mr Stevens and Miss Walker said that they were shocked and surprised to learn that they were the subject of a criminal inquiry. They would be offering the police every assistance.

John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, has waged an 18-month campaign to highlight alleged abuses of the compensation schemes. “People at the top of the UDM/Vendside have earned a fortune by riding this gravy train,” he said.

Is this in today's Times?

hi ya owd lad
ive had my compo for white finger but i was in the num i used a big firm of solicitors from sheffield it took about 2 years to sort out and that was with the fast track scheme set up by the dti i had to have loads of tests done at the dti in sheffield my left hand is totally numb in the cold weather and being a keen fisherman it hampers me no end its like having pins&needles all the time you got to just grin and bear it having said that i got 1 of the highest pay outs in sheffield but i would rather have the use of my hand back lol!! it seems it is all comming back to haunt them the greedy crettins making money out of sick miners what will never work no more due to these conditions i lie the blame with thatcher the milk snacher if it was not for her splitting the unions these claims from the udm would be non existant and would have all been done through the num i was in both miners strikes times were hard but luckyly i had my mam and dad to help me out some others were not so fortunate as me hope they get thier cumupance in the courts but somehow i think they will get away with it best regards steve ...:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Greenback
Is this in today's Times?

The article is here Greenback
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1672090,00.html

Originally posted by steevie/d
the blame with thatcher the milk snacher if it was not for her splitting the unions these claims from the udm would be non existant and would have all been done through the num i was in both miners strikes times were hard but luckyly i had my mam and dad to help me out some others were not so fortunate as me hope they get thier cumupance in the courts but somehow i think they will get away with it best regards steve ...:thumbsup: [/B]

I agree Steve, and those greedy lot at the UDM saw the perfect way to fill their boots.

I too went through the strikes (not as a miner) and saw the hardship that was caused not just to miners but also to local business's that never got back all the money they lost through no fault of their own, but who still stayed loyal to the Miners.

Now that Mick Stevens and Clare Walker are being investigated it remains to be seen if the powers that be will be strong enough to bring them to court.

For all his faults Arthur Scargill never told lies!

There were several other good articles in todays Times.

Did not bother with the UDM one though :(

yes owd lad arthur had some strong views many people did not like him but what he said has all come true closure of the mines etc when there were plenty of coal left in them now they have open casted them and made some1 else rich and spoilt the land scape of many areas around here and made a mess for the local residents what with all the dust & heavy lorries going back and forth

Originally posted by steevie/d
yes owd lad arthur had some strong views many people did not like him but what he said has all come true closure of the mines etc when there were plenty of coal left in them now they have open casted them and made some1 else rich and spoilt the land scape of many areas around here and made a mess for the local residents what with all the dust & heavy lorries going back and forth

Looks like bad karma from the 1980s is coming to get the UDM.... its members really should have listened to Mr Scargill and not sold their children's future.

StarSparkle

[i]its members really should have listened to Mr Scargill and not sold their children's future.

StarSparkle [/B]

I am no expert on the subject, but to my understanding, Thatcher would have stopped at nothing to destroy the UK coal mining industry.

Originally posted by venger
I am no expert on the subject, but to my understanding, Thatcher would have stopped at nothing to destroy the UK coal mining industry.

The UDM helped her along :(

I remember North Nottinghamshire being effectively cut off from the rest of the country - police manning every road in and out of the county, checking coaches that tried to drive into the county to ensure there were no potential NUM picketers on board.

Talk about Big Brother....

StarSparkle

The sad truth is that everyone has a price they will sellout at :(

What really gets to me is the lack of media coverage a story like this gets, can you imagine if Scargill was caught out doing a scam like this? Their would be press uproar like the way the Mirror for him, smearing his name when it was all lies. Yet not a peep about a UDM scandal.

Still when you think it about it scab's with no principles is pretty much as Dog bites man as you can get.

Scargill may well have told the truth about the pit closures, but he is not a 'hero', at least not to me. His vision was and is of a Marxist state in which the so-called 'means of production' are seized by the 'proletariat'. He makes no secret of the fact that he favours revolution. When Paxman quizzed him about this a couple of years ago on Newsnight, Scargill fixed him with the basilisk stare of a fanatic, and proclaimed, 'Of course I am a Marxist, a revolutionary Marxist, I always have been'.

Scargill's vision of Britain is not mine, nor is it that of the vast majority. By the way, do not listen to his bleating about how the Tories allowed the coal industry to die. I admit that the government of the time invested in foreign industry, but they had previously intervened by injecting considerable amounts into the mines to no avail. Perhaps mistakes were made in those days due to doctrinaire, neo-liberal, 'free marketeer' ideology which put the economy before all other issues. Nevertheless, the pits were most definately in seriously dire straits in terms of profits. The sad thing is, there were 'occupational communities' attached to the coal industry, with their own cultures, and they were decimated. However, no government can afford to be sentimental about propping up a useless, lost cause. The state, in any case, surely has little or no business in intervening in the sense of using tax-payers money to keep certain industries afloat.

That there may be corruption in the UDM comes as no surprise. Corruption is everywhere. If anyone wants an example of its personification, look no further than the odious, posturing Scargill. Like the Grand old Duke of York, he marched his men to the top of the hill....

Originally posted by timo
However, no government can afford to be sentimental about propping up a useless, lost cause.

Well I'd disagree when the cause is your community, but then I guess that's why I'm not a Tory.

Any chance you could give me an example of Scargills corruption?

Disco Cat,
What is 'my community'? Do you refer to Tories everywhere? I work in Higher Ed now, but when I worked in Banking I do not remember the government intervening to stop redundancies. There is nothing 'special' about the coal industry, aside from the unique culture that sprang up around it, with its own traditions. The same could be said for Hand loom weaving in the 19th century, but that too gave way and disappeared together with its 'occupational communities'. That is the way of the world.

Re corruption; the illegal ballot springs to mind here, and the needless misery that followed. I agree with you regarding the media bias against Scargill. It most definately is there. However, it is there for good reason. Scargill, as I say previously, is a Marxist revolutionary. We tend not to like that sort of thing in Britain.

No real need for specifics, just general a observation that Tories see the role of government as making it as easy as possible for people to make money, where as I would like a government to have a sense of sentimentality to the cause of keeping communities together.

But I suppose seeing family members reduced to being a worthless crack addict, dying of pneumonia when his previous generation had a true sense of worth and purpose thanks to their involvement in mining, does make you sentimental about the past. And angry about the present Thatcher has given us.

Especially since now it's becoming more and more obvious things needn't have been this way if only Thatcher hadn't been so hell bent on cracking the NUM. If you want to bout corruption, personally I think her crimes far outweigh any allegations of illegal ballots

Disco,
I don't think Thatcher is guilty of any 'crimes', just mistakes. These mistakes equate to the adoption of the aforementioned neo-liberal, 'free marketeer' economic policies at the expense of all other issues. I also concede that the curfews imposed upon parts of South Yorkshire were a long way from the Burkean conservative beliefs I hold dear. Indeed, I wrote to Thatcher personally to protest at the time. I do not rule out ill-feeling towards the NUM on behalf of the Thatcher administration [to say the least], but they cannot be blamed for social problems such as the 'crack addiction' in places like Barnsley.

Ultimately, government policies come and go. The state cannot be held responsible for the character flaws, criminal behaviour etc of individuals. Conscious, adult human beings have 'agency' [free will] to a great extent, and are responsible for their own actions. Cultural rather than structural [unemployment etc] variables cause the majority of social problems.

One thing occurs to me, Disco. I am not entirely sure whether you are referring to members of your own family here re your comments on 'crack' and pneumonia. If so, I am genuinely sorry. I acknowledge that the 'occupational communities' attached to mining did suffer. Only a fool would deny this. However, my point is that this was inevitable given the precarious state of the coal industry. Thatcher, however much people may dislike her personality [and I am not a fan], did not deliberately set out to cause misery to those communities. It is 'lazy thinking' to view things this way. As I say, Thatcher made mistakes due to slavishly following the ideologies of Hayek etc. This is not the same as being guilty of 'crimes'.

Originally posted by timo
Disco,
I don't think Thatcher is guilty of any 'crimes', just mistakes. These mistakes equate to the adoption of the aforementioned neo-liberal, 'free marketeer' economic policies at the expense of all other issues. I also concede that the curfews imposed upon parts of South Yorkshire were a long way from the Burkean conservative beliefs I hold dear. Indeed, I wrote to Thatcher personally to protest at the time. I do not rule out ill-feeling towards the NUM on behalf of the Thatcher administration [to say the least], but they cannot be blamed for social problems such as the 'crack addiction' in places like Barnsley.

Ultimately, government policies come and go. The state cannot be held responsible for the character flaws, criminal behaviour etc of individuals. Conscious, adult human beings have 'agency' [free will] to a great extent, and are responsible for their own actions. Cultural rather than structural [unemployment etc] variables cause the majority of social problems.

One thing occurs to me, Disco. I am not entirely sure whether you are referring to members of your own family here re your comments on 'crack' and pneumonia. If so, I am genuinely sorry. I acknowledge that the 'occupational communities' attached to mining did suffer. Only a fool would deny this. However, my point is that this was inevitable given the precarious state of the coal industry. Thatcher, however much people may dislike her personality [and I am not a fan], did not deliberately set out to cause misery to those communities. It is 'lazy thinking' to view things this way. As I say, Thatcher made mistakes due to slavishly following the ideologies of Hayek etc. This is not the same as being guilty of 'crimes'.

Timo,

Much as I admire you and find your postings generally very interesting, informative and erudite, I feel you are way off the mark with your interpretation of the Thatcher government and its treatment of the miners/mining communities.

I believe it became a personal mission - nay, a crusade - for Thatcher to once and for all (in her way of thinking) cripple the power of the unions in Britain by destroying the most powerful group of workers - the miners. I think Thatcher literally HATED the mineworkers and in fact took pleasure in the destruction of the mining industry and associated communities. It became a personal vendetta, and as such was absolutely appalling behaviour from a prime minister.

Remember 'the enemy within'? Utterly disgraceful to say such a thing.

The UK became a police state during the mid-80s, as its government literally turned on and savaged a section of the public. I mentioned in an earlier posting about the cordoning off of Nottinghamshire - I witnessed that with my own eyes.

I believe Thatcher knew perfectly well what she was doing to those communities, what their future would be - and she gloried in it. Mistakes can be forgiven - deliberate actions - no.

For a government to deliberately set out to destroy entire communities is to abrogate its responsibility to 'take care' of its people. Like Disco_Cat has suggested, I believe that a government's essential role is to protect and serve its people, not to make it easier for international capital to exploit them. I realise this is a naive view in today's world, but it doesn't make it wrong.

StarSparkle

Starsparkle,
Let me make it clear that I admire you too, and find your posts amongst the most interesting and passionate on the forum. The previous one is no exception. You are entitled to your view, and you know by now how much I respect you.

You are quite right to remind me of Thatcher's description of the NUM as 'the enemy within'. Perhaps I understate the enmity that existed at the time in my posting. However, I do not believe that Thatcher's original intention was to cause misery for the 'occupational communities' of the mining villages. The slavish devotion to neo-liberal ideology and economic policies equated to a focus upon economic outcomes at the expense of all other concerns. The Tories had, despite their economic philosophy at the time, 'intervened' anyway by ploughing in money in an attempt to keep afloat the industry. If anything, Thatcher's administration are 'guilty' of ignoring the communities rather than deliberately harming them.

Where the NUM is concerned, I agree that the Tories sought to smash this powerful, militant union. That is not the same thing as deliberately seeking to harm the communities. What government can afford to sit back when a Marxist revolutionary publicly declares an illegal ballot, and then goes on to boast that his union will 'bring down' the administration? Of course the NUM had to be defeated. My only regret is that the party I am a member of enforced curfews on the county of my birth. That was wrong, and deeply un-conservative.

Starsparkle, can you give me an example of how Thatcher 'gloried' in the destruction of the mining communities? Regarding 'duties', I would argue that the state does indeed have a defence role, and a very important role in maintaining law and order. I am aware that there is evidence of brutal police tactics, but there is also evidence of the most base and brutal behaviour on behalf of NUM members.

To reiterate, I feel that doctrinaire ideology blinded the party to the possible suffering of the communities. However, this would have happened anyway due to the ailing nature of the industry. The state has, in my view, no duty to intervene in business matters. The Tories actually did plough tax-payers money into the mines, until it was realised that the industry could no longer be salvaged in its then form. I acknowledge that some tactics, such as the curfews, were un-conservative and mistaken. However, the union had to be smashed because it was the steed ridden by a committed revolutionary set on toppling an elected government. No state can allow such a thing to happen. The problems in the former mining communities are caused more by cultural reasons than by structural reasons [unemployment etc]. Whether Thatcher had existed or not, the impact of 'international capital' as you put it would have been felt. British mines could not compete with the likes of their Polish equivalents, and were operating within a globalised network of production and exchange. In this network, far more is in the lap of the gods, and down to chance, than many realise. Many, if not most countries cannot really 'control' their economies as well as they pretend to.

Hopefully, this suffices as a reply. I suppose, ultimately, it comes down to where one's alliegances lie. As previously stated, mining had a finite future anyway, and it is not the state's business to prop up, or even worse to 'own' [as in nationalisation] industry. The coal industry is gradually going the way of the Hand Loom Weavers. People felt just as sad about that at the time,and the misery surrounding the death of that 'way of life' was just as profound. Sadly, that is the way things are in this world of uncertainty, flux and unintended consequences.

Regards.

Originally posted by timo
Starsparkle,
Let me make it clear that I admire you too, and find your posts amongst the most interesting and passionate on the forum. The previous one is no exception. You are entitled to your view, and you know by now how much I respect you.

You are quite right to remind me of Thatcher's description of the NUM as 'the enemy within'. Perhaps I understate the enmity that existed at the time in my posting. However, I do not believe that Thatcher's original intention was to cause misery for the 'occupational communities' of the mining villages. The slavish devotion to neo-liberal ideology and economic policies equated to a focus upon economic outcomes at the expense of all other concerns. The Tories had, despite their economic philosophy at the time, 'intervened' anyway by ploughing in money in an attempt to keep afloat the industry. If anything, Thatcher's administration are 'guilty' of ignoring the communities rather than deliberately harming them.

Where the NUM is concerned, I agree that the Tories sought to smash this powerful, militant union. That is not the same thing as deliberately seeking to harm the communities. What government can afford to sit back when a Marxist revolutionary publicly declares an illegal ballot, and then goes on to boast that his union will 'bring down' the administration? Of course the NUM had to be defeated. My only regret is that the party I am a member of enforced curfews on the county of my birth. That was wrong, and deeply un-conservative.

Starsparkle, can you give me an example of how Thatcher 'gloried' in the destruction of the mining communities? Regarding 'duties', I would argue that the state does indeed have a defence role, and a very important role in maintaining law and order. I am aware that there is evidence of brutal police tactics, but there is also evidence of the most base and brutal behaviour on behalf of NUM members.

To reiterate, I feel that doctrinaire ideology blinded the party to the possible suffering of the communities. However, this would have happened anyway due to the ailing nature of the industry. The state has, in my view, no duty to intervene in business matters. The Tories actually did plough tax-payers money into the mines, until it was realised that the industry could no longer be salvaged in its then form. I acknowledge that some tactics, such as the curfews, were un-conservative and mistaken. However, the union had to be smashed because it was the steed ridden by a committed revolutionary set on toppling an elected government. No state can allow such a thing to happen. The problems in the former mining communities are caused more by cultural reasons than by structural reasons [unemployment etc]. Whether Thatcher had existed or not, the impact of 'international capital' as you put it would have been felt. British mines could not compete with the likes of their Polish equivalents, and were operating within a globalised network of production and exchange. In this network, far more is in the lap of the gods, and down to chance, than many realise. Many, if not most countries cannot really 'control' their economies as well as they pretend to.

Hopefully, this suffices as a reply. I suppose, ultimately, it comes down to where one's alliegances lie. As previously stated, mining had a finite future anyway, and it is not the state's business to prop up, or even worse to 'own' [as in nationalisation] industry. The coal industry is gradually going the way of the Hand Loom Weavers. People felt just as sad about that at the time,and the misery surrounding the death of that 'way of life' was just as profound. Sadly, that is the way things are in this world of uncertainty, flux and unintended consequences.

Regards.

Timo,

Another well-argued and interesting posting - be assured of mutual regard!

However - we clearly view the politics of the 1980s in VERY different ways, and see political events of the time from fundamentally opposing political standpoints. I don't suppose either of us is likely to convince the other of the 'error of our ways'!

Ultimately, I believe politics is as much a matter of 'heart' as of 'mind'. The Thatcherite belief in the infallibility of the free market is absolute anathema to me. People and their communities matter to me more than economics or profit, so many of the Thatcher government's actions appear to me as being deliberate destruction.

I hear what you are saying, Timo, regarding Thatcher's viewing of the NUM as the Enemy, rather than the mining communities as such - but I believe you are underestimating the vindictiveness of Thatcher's personality here. I accept that is a matter of opinion, but at the time I believed hatred fuelled Thatcher's actions towards the mineworkers and their families, and I still believe that today.

Regards as always,

StarSparkle

i could tell you some home truths about the 2 miners strikes i was in them both !! i had a day off picketting at orgreave and me and a few other miners decided to go fishing on the trent at newark and got stopped at ollerton roundabout by what seemed to be police but one of my mates saw some men changinig uniforms from army uniforms to police ones in the lay by in a coach we were not allowed to continue to go fishing just because we were miners but we managed to out fox them by taking the back roads and we got stopped on the way back too at least we had a good days fishing thatcer had a side kick called ian mc greagor he was as much to blame as thathcer if not more i could go on forever abuot the strokes that were pulled in the strikes but i dont think this is the time or place to air my greivences besides its all water under the bridge now time to move on let by gones be bygons

Originally posted by timo
ultimately, it comes down to where one's alliegances lie.

Sums it all up really.