Compensation Payouts For Soldiers

[bluemonday]

Morten Morland in todays Times

[jimbms]

Morten Morland in todays Times

How true that is, the UK govt attitude down to a T

[The Voice of Reason]

It's an odd one.

 

The armed services are probably unique in that when you sign your contract of employment you are acknowledging that you may die or be injured to various degrees, in the course of your employment.

 

That said, if the worst does occur, well not the very worst, say very serious injury should you be "looked after" ?(you knew what you were getting into).

 

My take is you should be, and sod the moralistic, economic, and political arguments against that (valid though they may be)

 

Compassion (which does not always follow logic) should prevail over all those other arguments.

[manshimajin]

That said, if the worst does occur, well not the very worst, say very serious injury should you be "looked after" ?(you knew what you were getting into).

 

My take is you should be, and sod the moralistic, economic, and political arguments against that (valid though they may be)

 

Compassion (which does not always follow logic) should prevail over all those other arguments.

TBH I don't think that it should come down to 'compassion' at all.

 

Soldiers, airmen and sailors are employed by the British people (forget that chestnut about them being responsible to the Queen - she doesn't pay the bills) to do dangerous tasks on their behalf that their elected government deems necessary for the safety of the country and the well-being of its citizens. Whether these tasks are necessary or not is a different thread topic - and not one soldiers get a choice about.

 

If the British Government requires them to undertake tasks that can result in their death or crippling injury then they should look after them properly if the worst happens - as they should look after any public employee. And I would guess that the vast majority of British citizens have no problem with that idea. Far better to pay compensation to these people than to pay for an MP's moat to be cleaned out....

 

This looks like yet another case of the Labour Government shooting itself metaphorically in the foot - GB should have phoned the MoD p.d.q. and told them to stop behaving like idiots and to show some decency and ethics.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That said, if the worst does occur, well not the very worst, say very serious injury should you be "looked after" ?(you knew what you were getting into).

 

I don't see it as an issue of compassion. If compassion was important we wouldn't condone British foreign policy and whole host of other things conducted in the name of the British people.

 

There is a responsibility that the public must bear in allowing 'our' government to do as it does, it is partly our fault and in such a way we must accept the responsibility of supporting those that have been disabled by war. Which is why I am interested in the development of War Pensions to the concept of compensation in the form of disablement AND injury. It has to be noted that soldiers would receive care for their injuries in this country anyway, so what purpose does compensation have?

 

And to add, it is utterly despicable how servicemen have been treated in respect of long-term conditions. As PK referred to when he mentioned Post Traumatic Stress Disorders, one needs only look at the incidence to and response to conditions such as hysteria, neurasthenia, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorders, PTSD, and Gulf War Syndrome throughout the twentieth century to recognise that the government the people do not give two shits about the people who act in their name.

 

Soldiers, airmen and sailors are employed by the British people (forget that chestnut about them being responsible to the Queen - she doesn't pay the bills) to do dangerous tasks on their behalf that their elected government deems necessary for the safety of the country and the well-being of its citizens. Whether these tasks are necessary or not is a different thread topic - and not one soldiers get a choice about.

 

If the British Government requires them to undertake tasks that can result in their death or crippling injury then they should look after them properly if the worst happens - as they should look after any public employee. And I would guess that the vast majority of British citizens have no problem with that idea. Far better to pay compensation to these people than to pay for an MP's moat to be cleaned out....

 

I have avoided this area because I obviously disagree with the bullshit that posits that the Armed Forces work for the people and that foreign policy is carried out in order to ensure the safety of the country and the well-being of its citizens.

 

Your thinking on this is drifting to the area that Chinahand was finding so shocking when I mentioned it. And that is whether compensation was related to the fact that the people of the Armed Forces deserve compensation for supposed purpose and role of the armed forces - the public believe that work is of good value and is good work, so people should be compensated.

 

But from the majority of posts, it seems that the idea is that injury in the Forces is the same as in other any workplace and must be treated the same. Except in respect of negligence, I do find this rather strange. It seems slightly amusing how something so moral and civilised is carried out as a consequence of actions that are almost always so lacking in such qualities.

[Bananaman]

But from the majority of posts, it seems that the idea is that injury in the Forces is the same as in other any workplace and must be treated the same. Except in respect of negligence, I do find this rather strange. It seems slightly amusing how something so moral and civilised is carried out as a consequence of actions that are almost always so lacking in such qualities.

 

I had always thought that you would get compensated for loss of earnings. If a squaddie gets his legs blown off during the course of his duty he can no longer carry out the duties he was employed to do. To me this is a fairly simple case. If said squaddie had the potential to become the next Lt Gen and his career was cut short whilst fulfilling the course of his duty, hasn't shown any negligence or malpractice, etc.. Then said squaddie should get the full payout for what he was contracted to do and signed on the dotted shilling to do. Hopefully the Government will recognise that every squaddie could make Lt Col and all of them will do their 22 years and therefore compensate the squaddie for having his career cut short.

 

Let alone the poor bastard having to rebuild his life and liv e in pain beyond, mine and yours Lala, what thanfully most of us could ever imagine.

 

Sorted!

 

 

Sadly I don't think your silly books show you how to have compassion for our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Or to see them as human beings and therefore well below your tofu and mung bean salad saturated radar though. Hey?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I had always thought that you would get compensated for loss of earnings. If a squaddie gets his legs blown off in the course of his duty he can no longer carry out the duties he was employed to do. To me this is a fairly simple case. If said squaddie had the potential to become the next Lt Gen and his career was cut short whilst in the course of his duty, hasn't shown any negligence or malpractice, etc.. Then said squaddie should get the full payout for what he was contracted to do and signed on the dotted shilling to do. Hopefully the Government will recognise that every squaddie could make Lt Col and all of them will do their 22 years and therefore compensate the squaddie for having his career cut short.

 

Ok, is that what it really is about, compensating for loss of earnings? That is understandable and fair. But it doesn't appear to be structured in such a way that to my mind reflects this. The compensation seems to be ultimately based upon of costing of whatever injury has been caused, e.g. shot leg, blinded, etc. And there doesn't appear to be any long-term recourse to financial support for disablement, or am I wrong in thinking this?

 

Something of a tricky idea that the soldier should receive compensation that reflects the possibility that he would have fulfilled his career. Returning to the nature of the Armed Forces role, it is one full of uncertainties over what that role may engender. Should it not be taken for granted that the life of many servicemen will be cut short in the Forces and that it is to be expected by those who choose to serve? Ultimately, the role is one of threatening or using force. And it has to be expected that force would be used against you.

 

Let alone the poor bastard having to rebuild his life and liv e in pain beyond, mine and yours Lala, what thanfully most of us could ever imagine.

Sorted!

 

But again, without depreciating the pain and suffering of these people, the is an issue of choice about entering into this work and recognition of risk. I won't exaggerate it because the military has a role to play in recruitment - in the noxious advertising for adventure that is seen in universities and in the US where young people are stopped in the street and given a 'lesson' in a career in the army. But do you not think that the likelihood of being injured or killed in war is unknown to those who serve?

[Bananaman]

And there doesn't appear to be any long-term recourse to financial support for disablement, or am I wrong in thinking this?

 

 

Do you know about how long the maximum you can sign up for in the Army?

 

Not sure about the navy but with the RAF it is to the maximum age of 55 (not including special dispensation). The Army is very different.

 

So assume an 18 year old squaddie has the potential to make it as a Rupert by the time he's 25. He then has 22 years in the Army. He could (theoretically) make Lt Col. Now I could be way out but my time with the MoD's pay scale, a Wg Cdr was on £36 - 40k per year so it's probably close to £50k (but experience says it's still around the $40k mark). EDIT to add, a Wg Cdr is the RAF equivalent of Lt Col.

 

His pension could be two thirds of his final salary.

 

Why shouldn't the poor bugger get that payout in lump sum? They don't get close to that now, even with your macabre points and limbs lost make prizes view.

 

 

You're becoming more and more vile and low with your attempts to wind people up Lala. I do wish you would go back to the original angry gheyer you started off as on these forums. Your on thin ice with this line of wind up mate.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If I wanted to I could wind people up far easier.

 

Again, simply put, why is there an expectation of moving up the hierarchical ladder and fulfilling one's career ambitions in the military given the inherent risks and personal willingness to face those risks? (It is an entirely different matter to financially supporting those who have been disabled or lost wages through injury).

[Bananaman]

Again, simply put, why is there an expectation of moving up the hierarchical ladder and fulfilling one's career ambitions in the military

 

 

Anyone who has ever served with the Armed forces of any branch and that includes the MoD will answer that one for you Lala mate. You have yearly assesments, you have (I was RAF so apologies to the Navy and Army) RAFET, ISS, OCC, JSS and god knows how many other Civilian qualifications to aim for in order to get your promotion, commision or even to change branches. Let alone CPD in the trade you're in.

 

That's what you are taught to do. It may sound a cliche to you but the Army adverts say - To be the best. My Station Commanders (I had four in my time) all believed in that and actively pushed FE to get you personally, your promotion/commision/branch change etc.

 

Even more off topic (apologies again). I have my Grandfather's exercise book from 1937 where the whole of his Flight had there education time from the SEdO and it was practising their handwriting so that they didn't make the Royal Air Force look like they had illeterate fools amongst their ranks. He was an EngTech(E). So not a thicko, not many were in the RAF.

 

(Well apart from the Rock Apes, but that's an in joke)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But do you genuinely think this compensation is about paying for those lost opportunities. Like I was saying, this just seems like a crass and simply determination of payment depending on the occurrence of injury and what injury it is. It seems to do nothing that you refer to and favour.

[Chinahand]

I think, on a very brief reading which may be mistaken that there are three parts to it - firstly if there is fault (ie training accidents etc, negligence of others) it compensates for that fault, secondly it provides relief to for extra costs due to the injury (ie for wheel chair ramps etc etc) and thirdly there is the disability pension (widows pension etc).

 

Beyond this there is then the standard retirement pension for ex-servicemen.

 

If you get shot, loose a finger say - but there is no fault, no extra costs then you might get a small disability payment, and then you'd get your standard pension.

 

If there is incompetence and someone breaks their back - then there will be compensation, extra cost payments and then a disability pension/pension.

 

I really don't get what so confuses you about this LDV - it seems eminently reasonable to me. Certainly if the country went into a WWI or WWIII situation this may be unaffordable - but please note these payments are NOT large and I'm certain are taken into account in social security payments - ie an ex-squaddie will have these payments taken into consideration before they'll get various state benefits.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I really don't get what so confuses you about this LDV - it seems eminently reasonable to me. Certainly if the country went into a WWI or WWIII situation this may be unaffordable - but please note these payments are NOT large and I'm certain are taken into account in social security payments - ie an ex-squaddie will have these payments taken into consideration before they'll get various state benefits.

 

Why is it eminently reasonable? I have to still ask given the inherent dangers in this line of work. And considering that there is an element of choice about this. That is all I am having trouble getting my head around. I have heard other patriotic arguments and arguments about lost wages, but you have said the former is not what it is about and the latter wouldn't seem to be the case considering the manner in which compensation is calculated.

[Chinahand]

The squaddie chooses to go - because he knows he will be "looked after" if things go wrong.

 

Do you really find that odd?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Right, I think the trouble I am having is that I am looking more at the value (meaning or worth, not monetary value) of this compensation.

 

I have no problem with soldiers being supported when disabled or given adequate healthcare etc. But it just seems inexplicable that there is a payment that is given because an injury has been occurred.

But that's life. You join the armed forces and end in using forces against others then you might as well expect that you could get injured. Why offer compensation for its occurrence?

 

Is it me who is making a false distinction here? Or have I missed something on the purpose of the compo?