Compensation Payouts For Soldiers

[La_Dolce_Vita]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8171689.stm

 

Why does members of the armed forces get compensation in the first place? Isn't it simply the nature of the job? Same as getting killed. I find it really baffling.

 

If the issue is down to negligence on the Ministry's part then I can understand an argument for compensation.

I certainly don't want to contribute to a soldier's compensation if, for example, he was injured in Iraq.

I would rather contribute to compensation for civilian families whose family members have been killed in that country.

 

Maybe I am missing something here.

 

Though aside from this, the existing 'principle' that people should get compensated, if accepted, means that it would be fairer to payout on any complications resulting from the original injury as well as the injury itself.

[ans]

I can't see this thread ending well.

[Domino]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8171689.stm

 

Why does members of the armed forces get compensation in the first place? Isn't it simply the nature of the job? Same as getting killed. I find it really baffling.

 

If the issue is down to negligence on the Ministry's part then I can understand an argument for compensation.

I certainly don't want to contribute to a soldier's compensation if, for example, he was injured in Iraq.

I would rather contribute to compensation for civilian families whose family members have been killed in that country.

 

Maybe I am missing something here.

 

Though aside from this, the existing 'principle' that people should get compensated, if accepted, means that it would be fairer to payout on any complications resulting from the original injury as well as the injury itself.

 

And I don't want to contribute to your well-being when you get AIDS because you use the back door, but hay, that's life. Anyway I can't see you paying much tax - looking at the amount of time you spend on here you can't have a job.

[manshimajin]

Maybe I am missing something here.

Famous last words LDV!

 

Soldiers don't choose to go to Iraq or Afghanistan - they are sent there as a consequence of decisions taken by the elected government of the UK (in this case). So, whether you or I agree with the wars there, they are doing the will of the people of the UK as expressed through their choice of the Labour Party to govern the country.

 

I am more than happy in these circumstances that if some young squaddie gets injured that he/she receives first class medical care and appropriate compensation paid for by the UK taxpayer. Different if they were there as a mercenary.

 

What would you do for someone injured in this way - as opposed to what you do not believe should be done?

[Chinahand]

I certainly don't want to contribute to a soldier's compensation if, for example, he was injured in Iraq.

That statement shows a lack of humanity I find disturbing.

I would rather contribute to compensation for civilian families whose family members have been killed in that country.

Compensation is given to civilians unjustly injured. They also have taken their cases to the highest levels of our courts.

[chandler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8171689.stm

 

Why does members of the armed forces get compensation in the first place? Isn't it simply the nature of the job? Same as getting killed. I find it really baffling.

 

If the issue is down to negligence on the Ministry's part then I can understand an argument for compensation.

I certainly don't want to contribute to a soldier's compensation if, for example, he was injured in Iraq.

I would rather contribute to compensation for civilian families whose family members have been killed in that country.

 

Maybe I am missing something here.

 

Though aside from this, the existing 'principle' that people should get compensated, if accepted, means that it would be fairer to payout on any complications resulting from the original injury as well as the injury itself.

 

You really do talk rubbish LDV, you are a heartless cretin.The money our brave soldiers receive is to take care of them, for example adapting accomodation for them when they come home with there limbs blown off while out there defending your freedom. where do you think the insurgents (terrorists) would be if our boys wern't fighting them, i'll tell you, they would be in Britain trying to kill you.

[Chinahand]

LDV - in the Veteran's Day thread you attempted to make clear your sympathy with soldiers disciplined into war, while despising the Government that played with the soldiers' lives.

 

Your statement now about not wanting to compensate squaddies makes that out to be so much empty rhetoric.

 

You take your political beliefs beyond your humanity.

 

Westminster voted for those squaddies "to go and do their duty" - the UN approved their deployment - they didn't ask to go, they were sent there by a government that set their priorities over the squaddies' lives - and now you want to claim that their injuries should not be compensated.

 

My goodness, usually I find you an interesting provocative poster.

 

In this case I think you are contemptable. Certainly, dislike even hate a system - but have some humanity to those suffering under it - to deny a squaddy that shows a massive lack of humanity.

 

That's all I can say.

[P.K.]

Other services that also carry risk such as police, fireman etc also have similar compensation to help cope with injuries sustained carrying out hazardous duties. Like the nods firemen don't get to choose which fire to fight! What is also disturbing is PTSD and the homeless problem. Some 15 - 20% of those on the streets are ex-military.

[thebees]

Ofc they should.

[Vulgarian]

You really do talk rubbish LDV, you are a heartless cretin.The money our brave soldiers receive is to take care of them, for example adapting accomodation for them when they come home with there limbs blown off while out there defending your freedom. where do you think the insurgents (terrorists) would be if our boys wern't fighting them, i'll tell you, they would be in Britain trying to kill you.

 

lol. Get the fuck out.

 

Westminster voted for those squaddies "to go and do their duty" - the UN approved their deployment - they didn't ask to go, they were sent there by a government that set their priorities over the squaddies' lives - and now you want to claim that their injuries should not be compensated.

 

Certainly, dislike even hate a system - but have some humanity to those suffering under it - to deny a squaddy that shows a massive lack of humanity.

 

Westminster voted for them to go to war, but the soldiers joined the army of their own volition, knowing what the job entails. The government is using the army for the purpose it is designed for.

 

If you'd rather not risk getting shot or blown up don't join the army.

 

Other services that also carry risk such as police, fireman etc also have similar compensation to help cope with injuries sustained carrying out hazardous duties. Like the nods firemen don't get to choose which fire to fight!

 

I think LDV's objection to injured soldiers receiving compensation is an extension of his opposition to the military in general, but i think it's a bit of an ideological over-reach. I think if the government wants an army, and to send it to war, it should be prepared to support its soldiers if they're injured. (That's not to say i support the military in any way) But if the army was engaged in a full-scale war then compensation could turn out to be very costly indeed.

 

Firemen are a different matter as far as i'm concerned because they're fulfilling a necessary and useful role.

[Evil Goblin]

"That's not to say i support the military in any way" - not even in 1939 or if the Soviet War Machine had come West? You'd have been screaming for the squaddies then!

[Bananaman]

Good old www.thedailymash.co.uk . On the ball as ever.

 

LABOUR MANIFESTO TO FOCUS ON BULLYING INJURED SOLDIERS

GORDON Brown is pinning Labour's re-election hopes on a strategy of dragging injured soldiers through the courts and trying to steal their money.

 

Mr Brown said stealing soldiers' money would be a fitting tribute to Harry Patch

The prime minster has instructed the Ministry of Defence to make wounded servicemen beg for compensation in a move that he believes will wrong-foot the Tories and secure millions of votes across middle England.

 

A Labour spokesman said: "If there is one thing this country is absolutely sick of it is lazy, horribly injured soldiers lying around doing nothing all day except suffering constant pain and terrifying flashbacks.

 

"I think most people will be shocked to learn we have given them any money, let alone just enough for them to begin rebuilding their shattered lives.

 

"This is money that could be used to provide high-class prostitutes and Wii games for those unfortunate teenage boys who found themselves in a young offenders' institute after being forced to break into your house."

 

He added: "Everyone knows that when you join the army you can either choose to go to war or you can choose to stay at home and provide back-up in case of a fire brigade strike.

 

"And even if you do go to war you are under no legal requirement to follow orders, especially if they are really stupid and badly thought out."

 

The Labour manifesto is likely to propose a programme of ritual humiliation for injured soldiers in what opposition parties condemned as 'naked populism of the worst kind'.

 

The spokesman said: "We'll give you a couple of grand for a severed leg, but you are going to have to bring the leg with you, re-enact the explosion and be judged by a panel of celebrities before we write the cheque."

[Vulgarian]

"That's not to say i support the military in any way" - not even in 1939 or if the Soviet War Machine had come West? You'd have been screaming for the squaddies then!

 

haha. You'll notice i didn't say that i don't support the military.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And I don't want to contribute to your well-being when you get AIDS because you use the back door, but hay, that's life. Anyway I can't see you paying much tax - looking at the amount of time you spend on here you can't have a job.

 

Aww Domino, I am glad my posts interest you enough to take me off ignore. Flattered, truly! And yes Dear, I work.

 

Soldiers don't choose to go to Iraq or Afghanistan - they are sent there as a consequence of decisions taken by the elected government of the UK (in this case). So, whether you or I agree with the wars there, they are doing the will of the people of the UK as expressed through their choice of the Labour Party to govern the country.

 

I am more than happy in these circumstances that if some young squaddie gets injured that he/she receives first class medical care and appropriate compensation paid for by the UK taxpayer. Different if they were there as a mercenary.

 

What would you do for someone injured in this way - as opposed to what you do not believe should be done?

 

The issue of choice is interesting because the way it is discussed by members of the public almost makes out that the person has no choice. But they had a choice to join an organisation where they would risk their life.

 

I am quite happy for him to receive first-class care and I am disgusted at the manner in which chronic illnesses have been dealt in our country. But the issue of compensation is one that I don't quite understand.

 

You really do talk rubbish LDV, you are a heartless cretin.The money our brave soldiers receive is to take care of them, for example adapting accomodation for them when they come home with there limbs blown off while out there defending your freedom. where do you think the insurgents (terrorists) would be if our boys wern't fighting them, i'll tell you, they would be in Britain trying to kill you.

 

Defending our freedom? You can wheel out that argument circa 1944, but not today. It has to be recognised that such adventures in Iraq are reasons why there are idiots who would want to kill British civilians. We bring it on ourselves TO AN APPRECIABLE EXTENT.

 

My goodness, usually I find you an interesting provocative poster.

 

In this case I think you are contemptable. Certainly, dislike even hate a system - but have some humanity to those suffering under it - to deny a squaddy that shows a massive lack of humanity.

 

Let's not pretend my comments on here are that despicable. We live in a country where little fuss is made about the circumstances of servicemen and are quite happy to allow charities to support ex-servicemen. Moreover, we as a society kick up little bother about going to war, which is an afront to humanity, no matter how wrong that war may be.

 

Well I have a confusion over how compensation is merited in these particular instances.

 

I have a very good understanding of how disgustingly servicemen have been treated in the past and how little recognition and long-term financial support there is.

 

But there are some issues with compensation that puzzle me:

 

1) These men willingly enter into a job role where there life is on the line and where there is a high chance of injury. It is their personal choice to join. In which case, why should I pay for the bad results of this personal gamble that they have made when killing others?

2) However, I recognise that we as a society are all responsible for the Iraq War and Afghanistan War (for example) and although it is our governments and not the people who have control, we have to liable for the consequences of failing to prevent this war. Therefore, it is ok to compensate the soldiers - but not in the form it is being delivered. Some token payment worked out on a checklist of injuries and without resort to long-term financial support is not the way to do things.

 

I suppose the issue is a complicated (for me). The first issue is one which I think needs unpicking. This is an organisation whose role primarily revolves around conflict. Death and injury are the name of the game. Though we have reached a position where asymmetic warfare is very uncommon, we have not reached one where the incidence of death and injury is something peculiar and uncommon.

 

Compensation is given to civilians unjustly injured. They also have taken their cases to the highest levels of our courts.

 

Has this been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Other services that also carry risk such as police, fireman etc also have similar compensation to help cope with injuries sustained carrying out hazardous duties. Like the nods firemen don't get to choose which fire to fight! What is also disturbing is PTSD and the homeless problem. Some 15 - 20% of those on the streets are ex-military.

 

Well the incidence of mental conditions in servicemen and how it has been dealt with and continues to be dealt with really shows how little the people REALLY care about the soldiers and support them (in a meaningless and decent) way. All the public are interested in are making sure that they get a pat on the back when they are out fighting and for what they have done.

 

Interesting examples you have given. I think what worries me is that such compensation payments in respect of the armed forces offer an acceptability to the public's acceptance of war and its costs. Although the public is to an extent responsible for the conflicts the country wages (by not adequately opposing them and continuing to support the government) we have responsibility. But also, these wars are determined by the elite in the country, and the consequences are shifted onto the public.