La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 You're probably right. But I just wondered whether the compensation scheme is based on one of a number of things: 1) Is it a form of compensation in the same manner as other type of injury compensation in the workplace? 2) Is it related to patriotic in that the government decides that society should recognise the injured and give them a payout to compensate for their injury in fighting for the country? Hive society! What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Its the same as any other workplace in terms of who gets what payout and is a complete paperwork exersise where emotions and the like do not get put into the factor. I have an example, i fast-roped down out of a lynx and the misjudged my landing. i broke my ankle and it was suggested that i put in a claim for time spent in hospital (I was not arsed to be honest but at £150 a day i thought i would give it a bash.) An investigation took place and because i was wearing boots that i had bought because the issue ones were shit i was not allowed to claim. When i was working for an oil company I slipped off a tank and fractured my eye socket and was off work for 2 weeks, I put in a claim and dispite me wearing trainers I got compensated for the time off work with hardly any questions asked. If you want to have a pop at peoples excessive claiming i sugest you drop this whole thing with the armed forces and look elswhere, the UK police service would be a good place to start. I have seen hundreds of accidents go unclaimed because of the type of people soldiers are, they just want to crack on with the minimum amount of fuss, not many civvies would do the same in the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 LDV - As the recipient of a War Disability Pension I can assure you that I have infinitely more knowledge of the system and it's nuances than you ever will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 But LDV has read books! how can you have more knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 Oh no, I am not having a crack at the amount they are claiming. If I completely accepted the principle of compensation then it would seem absolutely disgusting that these people are not given support for the long-term effects of their illness or injury. A one-off payment for an initial injury seems a simplistic and irresponsible way of dealing with it. I am just trying to get to the nub of how compensation is perceived and what it is there for. I mean, when these soldiers put themselves in such jobs where it is understood that there is a high likelihood of them being injured or killed, and that they will kill others it seems very different from the normal injury payouts in civilian workplaces. I was saying earlier how modern warfare fought by western nations has changed because of the recent military technological revolution, but the likelihood of injury or death is part of the job. The character of War Pensions (which were shit) seem quite different in their purpose and structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 LDV - As the recipient of a War Disability Pension I can assure you that I have infinitely more knowledge of the system and it's nuances than you ever will. Then please share them (though not necessarily the details of your injury etc.), as you give the impression that I am utterly ignorant of something. I am not saying I do know more, just that I disagree from the information I have come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Is it related to patriotic in that the government decides that society should recognise the injured and give them a payout to compensate for their injury in fighting for the country? LDV please read through your posts before posting - it is difficult enough understanding you without typos etc making it even harder!! Am I reading this right - you think that the government has manipulated society so that people think that compensating soldiers is the right thing to do? Goodness you have a wierd viewpoint. Should we start with John Locke: A genuinely political community … is one freely founded by naturally equal human beings, It claims its authority on the basis of their past consent to be members of a single political community and on the subsequent working of political institutions which enable them to confer or withhold this consent to, among other matters, the making of laws and the levying of taxes … The point of governmental power is to combine inside a political society the advantages of impartiality with effective powers of enforcement in conflicts between its members and to defend these members against threats from the outside world with the full force they can collectively muster. Was he being manipulated by a government when he wrote that, or do you think he was able to see that such a political community was a good idea - an example of rational selfishness resulting in group cooperation. Looking through history are you unable to note that communities often need to defend their members against threats from the outside world. Do you really, and I really mean really, think that it isn't a good idea - given the situation in the world today, and historically, but not in your lala land of an anarchist future (after the revolution and all that) - to have an army. In order to do that you have to, how should we put it, incentivise people to join up - and guess what - that means offering to support and help soldiers if the shit hits the fan - or more accurately the bullet hits the bone. Do you really have difficulty analysing the logic of this from an anarchist point of view. A state is an institution to reduce injustice, other than the injustice it causes itself. You are so fixated on the injustice it causes itself you have just entered the twilight zone when understanding the positive effects states produce with legal systems, monopolies on violence and communal means of defence etc etc etc. My goodness LDV - I really wonder what the world looks like from inside your skull - cos from what you spout it has a very very wierd view of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 Well I have to wonder because the alternative reason for compensation, i.e. one based on the compensation given to those who have an injury, just seems very strange given the purpose and role of the military. They choose to enter into an organisation where they are going to be at risk and very often create that risk by being ready to take orders to attack other men. It just seems such a starkly different thing to 'normal' work to make it hard for me to comprehend how compensation should be given. I can understand disability allowances but not just for having an injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 You're probably right. QFT the concept of compensation is not something that you are ever going to 'get' LDV. As i pointed out before, your political leanings are such that this issue is hardly the place to start. I accept that your politics and mine differ, but many people are just going to be angered by this thread as they will percieve your attitude to be deliberate and malicious. in order to better understand compensation, you would first need to accept/understand 1)the concepts of ownership 2)the trade barter/system and 3) payments for goods and/or services rendered. the "they knew what they were signing up for" card that has been played a few times, is so full of shit, any goverment that recruits young men and women to the armed services, knows far more what it expects of them than they could ever truly guess. until those men and women have seen their napoleonic battlefield they cant know what they have signed up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 @LDV - Surely it would be more acurate to state that you have been indoctrinated to accept an anarchist outlook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 Was he being manipulated by a government when he wrote that, or do you think he was able to see that such a political community was a good idea - an example of rational selfishness resulting in group cooperation. Looking through history are you unable to note that communities often need to defend their members against threats from the outside world. Do you really, and I really mean really, think that it isn't a good idea - given the situation in the world today, and historically, but not in your lala land of an anarchist future (after the revolution and all that) - to have an army. In order to do that you have to, how should we put it, incentivise people to join up - and guess what - that means offering to support and help soldiers if the shit hits the fan - or more accurately the bullet hits the bone. Do you really have difficulty analysing the logic of this from an anarchist point of view. A state is an institution to reduce injustice, other than the injustice it causes itself. You are so fixated on the injustice it causes itself you have just entered the twilight zone when understanding the positive effects states produce with legal systems, monopolies on violence and communal means of defence etc etc etc. My goodness LDV - I really wonder what the world looks like from inside your skull - cos from what you spout it has a very very wierd view of the world. This would take too long to answer. I understand the liberal point of view, I just don't accept it. Think about it, I haven't always had an anarchist outlook, I have been brought up and indoctrinated to accept a liberal one - so I am well versed in liberal thinking on the role of the state and the military. But I think you need to consider what the role and purpose of the British Armed Forces has been for the past 50 years. It hasn't been about threat response except in respect of the Soviet Union. Aghanistan and Iraq aren't about threats to the UK, for example. And British foreign policy has partly resulted in an increased likelihood of threat. I genuinely do think your understanding of antiquated views and acceptance of theories on liberalism stand in contrast to the world that exists today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafted in the Isle of Man Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I cannot understand you LDV, these lads are brave, many of them are young. They take on a job to protect you and all of us. We may not agree that they should be fighting in another country, I would rather Alan Bell, Gordon Brown and Alistar Darling go than our lads, but they go where they are sent. The government decides where they go, and they just get on with it and do their job. Personally i think that they do not get enough compensation, they should be on par with the America compensation scheme, they deserve far more than they get. After all no matter what amount they get, you cannot replace limbs and eyes and life. So stop talking a load of rubbish. These lads have mums, dads, wifes and kids, think how they feel. If you were a man you would go out there and do that job yourself, instead you sit behind a computer send messages willy nilly. Haven't you got a job? Get a life wimp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandler Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Why the fuck does everyone keep responding every time this idiotic troll with his twisted ideology comes up with yet another thread with no other intention than to try and be controversial?He obviously has no idea what he is talking about and virtually no real world experience of anything he comments on. STOP FEEDING THE TROLL! I Agree with you totally Sidney, if we all ignore the idiot maybe he will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 If you were a man you would go out there and do that job yourself, instead you sit behind a computer send messages willy nilly. Haven't you got a job? Get a life wimp! Oh the irony...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 @LDV - Surely it would be more acurate to state that you have been indoctrinated to accept an anarchist outlook? Possible, but I would call it an education, though it may possibly be a bad one - but I'd like to think that I have critically assessed liberalism and other ideologies (including liberatarianism) to come to my own thinking. That's not indoctrination. They take on a job to protect you and all of us. Doesn't happen in practice. We may not agree that they should be fighting in another country, I would rather Alan Bell, Gordon Brown and Alistar Darling go than our lads, but they go where they are sent. The government decides where they go, and they just get on with it and do their job. But though it is not to be exaggerated, the fact that their service is a choice has to be recognised. They must understand that there are certain risks. And in them knowing this, how does compensation work? Because work compensation is predicated on the idea of things happening that shouldn't. If you were a man you would go out there and do that job yourself, instead you sit behind a computer send messages willy nilly. Haven't you got a job? Get a life wimp! Expectations on me due to my gender don't really bother me I'm afraid. Shall I tell you to stay in the kitchen if you are a woman or demand to know YOUR claim to masculinity? I'll make it easy, pretend I am a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.