bluenose 52 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Speaking as an ex soldier and a war pensioner the answer is simple, if you work in civvie street and you get injured due to your employers fault you get compensated, no one in here would or could complain about that one, so whats the problem with people in the military receiving the same, if I would be engaged in a fire-fight with an enemy that would be the governments fault if I were to be injured, so as in civvie street they are libel. I for the life of me dont understand what some of you are going on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 LDV, perhaps the way forward for you to gain greater understanding might be to enlist, then surely you could subsequently speak authoritatively from a position of full knowledge, having 'been there, done that and got the T shirt' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Speaking as an ex soldier and a war pensioner the answer is simple, if you work in civvie street and you get injured due to your employers fault you get compensated, no one in here would or could complain about that one, so whats the problem with people in the military receiving the same, if I would be engaged in a fire-fight with an enemy that would be the governments fault if I were to be injured, so as in civvie street they are libel. I for the life of me dont understand what some of you are going on about. Hmm, and in a sense I do agree as I explained earlier, but probably for different reasons that some others on here have. It is the government who chooses what happens to the soldiers and where they go, but the government is not the people. But then again we do nothing to stop it, so I guess it is all our own fault. But then to some extent it has to be asked why there is such an expectation for compensation when the Armed Force is largely a tool for coercion through threat or action. LDV, perhaps the way forward for you to gain greater understanding might be to enlist, then surely you could subsequently speak from a position of knowledge, having 'been there, done that and got the T shirt' Quite right, no doubt it would be a great way to gain that experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 LDV, perhaps the way forward for you to gain greater understanding might be to enlist, then surely you could subsequently speak from a position of knowledge, having 'been there, done that and got the T shirt' Quite right, no doubt it would be a great way to gain that experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 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. If it was a Fireman or Coatguard member would you question then..? Say Dave the fireman is injured putting out a fire (all part off the job by your logic) They get a compensation payout, would you argue the same points with that. LDV again you sit in your college room or flat/ bedsit in Salford and make assupmtions about issues that you don't seem to fully grasp or see from some strange perspective that differs from everyone elses. These people put their lives at risk, to secure your future.. and you moan and question that they get some small money payout for having their lives altered for the rest of their days. I hope that you are never the recipitant off an injury that affects your life, apart from the obvious fact you where born with no brain activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 If it was a Fireman or Coatguard member would you question then..? No, these jobs are of a different quality. These people do not find employment in a service that revolves around using force against others and therefore have force used against them - thus leading to the likelihood of injury. LDV again you sit in your college room or flat/ bedsit in Salford and make assupmtions about issues that you don't seem to fully grasp or see from some strange perspective that differs from everyone elses. If you haven't been aware, in THIS thread I have been asking questions to determine how it works and the reasoning behind its introduction. This is a topic which I probably do need to hear the opinions of those who have served in the military. These people put their lives at risk, to secure your future.. and you moan and question that they get some small money payout for having their lives altered for the rest of their days. Even if that were true, which it isn't, it isn't apparently relevant, as their supposed role and duty has nothing to do with compensation. And the compensation is limited to injuries which are necessarily life-changing. I have no problem with the idea of supporting those disabled or who are permanently affected through injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 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. LDV you can't simply ignore a fact! Like it or not (and I understand you do not like it) the UK operates a system of democracy that delegates decision making from the individual to their 'elected representative' - the Westminster system. The British people therefore delegate for 5 year periods decisions on everything from environmental policy to foreign policy and defence. Soldiers in the UK are carrying out orders from the popularly elected government - and without a choice in the matter. The last I knew the UK electorate had delegated responsibility for foreign and military policy to the Labour Party. I do not think the UK (or the Island) has a modern system of democracy nor do I think that the Iraq invasion was based on good Intelligence. That does not mean that soldiers should forego reasonable compensation for injuries sustained obeying orders from the UK Government or in training to do their job. Nor do I think the UK population are absolved from the consequences and responsibilities of electing the Labour Party and sticking with a 'first past the post' electoral system (btw my view would be exactly the same if it had been the Conservatives who were in power) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 I did address parts of this earlier. The British people do delegate and they are under the impression that their interests are served in a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. And you are right, the fact that there are people who offer support for the British parliamentary system by giving it recognition and support through election means that the public are responsible for all that is carried out in their name. If you voted and you don't like what is going on, don't complain about it but face up to your responsibility. And as such, those who vote have a responsibility for the consequences. And those who did nothing to stop the war, including myself, must take responsibility. If people are killed in Afghanistan then it is largely our problem. However, from that perspective we should pay compo Iraqi soldiers injured in combat than British, given we did nothing to stop it. But there is still the element of choice regarding enlistment. How much this places personal responsibility on the serviceman compared to the responsibility of the public I don't know, however, I find it very relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 But then to some extent it has to be asked why there is such an expectation for compensation when the Armed Force is largely a tool for coercion through threat or action. A blinkered and oversimplistic view of the role of the modern Britich Forces. In my 9 years of service I did 2 operational tours of duty, neither of which would could be described as using force or coercion. The first was Operation Gabriel, where the logistic and support elements of 5 Airborne Brigade went out to Rwanda in Africa to give humanitarian aid overseen by the United Nations after the tribal genocide. One of our sappers stood on a landmine and lost a leg, by your logic he has no right to compensation even though we were not being used as a "Tool for coercion through threat or action". My own disability pension is directly linked to that tour of duty. I've been patient with your comments so far, but IMHO you are now just starting to be offensive. You are not going to win this argument, your political views and opinions may have sound basis in your mind and those of your close friends/peer group but I can assure you that you are in a very small minority. If I ever meet you, you can buy me a drink and I will show you the holiday snaps and you can get a realistic idea of what British forces actually do in the modern age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Well the ultimate role of the forces is to use or threaten force for political means, but I never said it was all about this. Of course other duties have fallen on the Forces shoulders over time and the changed international order has made operations, such as peace-keeping commonplace. The 'logic' of my line of thinking was about the fact that the servicemen expose themselves to a certain level of risk that is inherent in the job. And the sapper who lost the leg, he would have been disabled and would get a pension. But I am only querying the nature of the new compensation scheme. It seems to apply for any injury, whenever it incurs disablement or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 'My life is ruined and MoD has deserted me' Lance-Corporal Ryan Knight, 23, was badly injured in Helmand Province and now plans to sue the minstry for negligence Clicky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.