La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 "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! And you would have been quite right to some extent as the result would have been very bad for the workers of Britain. Fascism and Stalinist style state socialist are things to be fought against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I certainly don't want to contribute to a soldier's compensation if, for example, he was injured in Iraq. You are very harsh. Those who put themselves forward in the service of their country deserve to be looked after if their bodies get broken in the course of duty. It's the least we can do and a minor cost compared to all the wasteful government projects we are required to fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 You are very harsh. Those who put themselves forward in the service of their countrydeserve to be looked after if their bodies get broken in the course of duty. It's the least we can do and a minor cost compared to all the wasteful government projects we are required to fund. They serve the government. As an aside, do you think we should also compensate the Iraqi soldiers who were injured, considering the US and UK started the war? I think the first priority is to compensating (in a more understandable sense of the word) the Iraqi and Afghani civilians. I don't know about the UK, but I know the US has seemingly found it very difficult to arrange it. Apparently, if it is related to combat situations there is no payout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarroo.ushtey Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 And all the time it is a volunteer army there should be no compensation for doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I can't see this thread ending well. I can't see it ending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 And all the time it is a volunteer army there should be no compensation for doing their job. I see both yourself and LDV have not looked at the cases in question, had you done so you would have seen 2 of those in question on the test cases had injuries not sustained in combat, one got injured in training and the other broke his hip when a defective piece of equipment broke free and fell on him. So as these injuries are by definition accidents in the work place then by your views on this if you have an accident at work you should not be compensated, after all you opted to take the job knowing there may be some risks in the workplace. as you said "there should be no compensation for doing their job." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 And all the time it is a volunteer army there should be no compensation for doing their job. I see both yourself and LDV have not looked at the cases in question, had you done so you would have seen 2 of those in question on the test cases had injuries not sustained in combat, one got injured in training and the other broke his hip when a defective piece of equipment broke free and fell on him. So as these injuries are by definition accidents in the work place then by your views on this if you have an accident at work you should not be compensated, after all you opted to take the job knowing there may be some risks in the workplace. as you said "there should be no compensation for doing their job." My fault in these cases, I read a newspaper article that didn't mention the reasons behind these cases. However, I am right in thinking that compensation is allowable for injury in combat, aren't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 My fault in these cases, I read a newspaper article that didn't mention the reasons behind these cases. However, I am right in thinking that compensation is allowable for injury in combat, aren't I? LDV, criticising the system is easy to do. What is your thought through alternative? Something for them? Nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 My fault in these cases, I read a newspaper article that didn't mention the reasons behind these cases. However, I am right in thinking that compensation is allowable for injury in combat, aren't I? LDV, criticising the system is easy to do. What is your thought through alternative? Something for them? Nothing? Unsure. I don't agree with the idea of compensation as "Oh you're hurt in battle, that's terrible, we'll give you a set amount of money for that leg that was blown off and this much for your arm, goodbye". It shouldn't be treated as some exceptional circumstance, an occasional work-related injury that the person needs compensating for as if it is society's fault. It is society's fault but in a sense that isn't being dealt with such forms of compo. A person doesn't deserve anything for choosing to join the forces and then finding they have been shot. That is the nature of the job. Though I am a little unsure, as I said, I recognise that society has to pay the price for allowing such things as the Iraq War to take place, so let's take the hit. If so, the compensation system is ridiculous. It is wrong paying out on an original injury and not carrying on this support when there are complications, possibly throughout the person's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Explained LDV - I find your attitude typically rigid and dogmatic. Soldiers have always been offered pensions etc - that is part of the quid pro quo - you sign up to get shot, you get a pension and your wife a widows pension etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Explained LDV - I find your attitude typically rigid and dogmatic. Soldiers have always been offered pensions etc - that is part of the quid pro quo - you sign up to get shot, you get a pension and your wife a widows pension etc. Yes, I know they have, but as far as I am aware these pensions were paid out for disablement, whereas these compensation payments are simply for being injured (amongst other things). Whereas I absolutely agree that people should be financially sound if unable to work or disabled, I cannot agree to a system that pays out to someone who is simply injured, if this really is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Isn't it just their equivalent of a personal accident insurance policy? Lose a finger get £1,000, lose a hand get £5,000, lose an arm get £25,000 etc. Lots of work places have them, and I can't imagine a commercial insurer offering a policy to the services, so the govt step in and effectively underwrite it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Would you agree to the compensation if the soldiers were injured in a war that you did agree to? The soldiers don't get a choice in where they are posted. Traditionally the Isle of Man has had a lot of people joining the forces : From ; http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fu...gw1922/ch02.htm and referring to people enlisting for the 1st world war. "It was, of course, impossible to estimate exactly the number of men who joined His Majesty's services from the Isle of Man throughout the entire period of the war, as, in the days of voluntary enlistment, men would proceed to centres on the mainland to join the colours, and, naturally, no records were preserved in the Island of such enlistments. Enlistments through the local recruiting office were, of course, recorded and known, and, when compulsory service became law, most detailed particulars were preserved. It was estimated that 8,000 men joined the Navy, Army, and Air Force from the Isle of Man during the war, and about half that number joined during the days of voluntary enlistment. The population of the Isle of Man was 50,000, and this included an abnormal number of aged persons and young children when compared with populations of other countries, as it had been custom-ary for many years past for large numbers of young men to leave the Island annually for the Colonies, there being limited occupation locally for young men. In these circumstances, the percentage of available men for military service was lower in the Isle of Man than in the United Kingdom, but, nevertheless, the Island sent one-sixth of her population to the fighting forces, a higher proportion than that for the United King-dom. Considering how little associated the Island has been with the British Army, the response of Manxmen to the Empire's call for men, when recruiting was by voluntary enlistment, was wonderful. Except for an occasional brigade or regimental camp of Territorials during a week or two in summer, the Island had scarcely seen a squad of the British Army since the withdrawal in 1896 of the small garrison at Castle-town, consisting of half a company." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Isn't it just their equivalent of a personal accident insurance policy? Lose a finger get £1,000, lose a hand get £5,000, lose an arm get £25,000 etc. Lots of work places have them, and I can't imagine a commercial insurer offering a policy to the services, so the govt step in and effectively underwrite it. Now stop being so pragmatic and sensible this is a political argument with an anarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Would you agree to the compensation if the soldiers were injured in a war that you did agree to? The soldiers don't get a choice in where they are posted. Traditionally the Isle of Man has had a lot of people joining the forces No, not really. And like I said, they have a choice about joining the services. From ; http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fu...gw1922/ch02.htm and referring to people enlisting for the 1st world war. It was, of course, impossible to estimate exactly the number of men who joined His Majesty's services from the Isle of Man throughout the entire period of the war, as, in the days of voluntary enlistment, men would proceed to centres on the mainland to join the colours, and, naturally, no records were preserved in the Island of such enlistments. Enlistments through the local recruiting office were, of course, recorded and known, and, when compulsory service became law, most detailed particulars were preserved. It was estimated that 8,000 men joined the Navy, Army, and Air Force from the Isle of Man during the war, and about half that number joined during the days of voluntary enlistment. The population of the Isle of Man was 50,000, and this included an abnormal number of aged persons and young children when compared with populations of other countries, as it had been custom-ary for many years past for large numbers of young men to leave the Island annually for the Colonies, there being limited occupation locally for young men. In these circumstances, the percentage of available men for military service was lower in the Isle of Man than in the United Kingdom, but, nevertheless, the Island sent one-sixth of her population to the fighting forces, a higher proportion than that for the United King-dom. Considering how little associated the Island has been with the British Army, the response of Manxmen to the Empire's call for men, when recruiting was by voluntary enlistment, was wonderful. Except for an occasional brigade or regimental camp of Territorials during a week or two in summer, the Island had scarcely seen a squad of the British Army since the withdrawal in 1896 of the small garrison at Castle-town, consisting of half a company. It wasn't wonderful in the sense of being good. Though had to suffer the shitty conditions in places like Salonika (where a lot of Manxman were posted) in fighting against the Bulgarians. Many of these manxmen died needlessly, as with many other men from across the world. And WW1 brought many on the Island to their knees financially,whilst financially benefitting a few landholders and those who supplied the camps. Why have you brought up the history of WW1, curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.