Interesting interpretation on crimes in a war zone...

Message

#1 Unread post by **dr_bar** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:32 pm

"Wounded to get millions in compensation"By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

"Hundreds of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be awarded millions of pounds in compensation following a ruling by the Government that they are victims of crime not war."

What an interesting concept.

Is this also done in other countries?

Can American and Canadian soldiers wounded by insurgent
raids claim compensation from their governments as well?

Is this a good policy?

oldschoolorange · Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:51 pm

reguardless of what term they use crime or war, If you are wounded in service of your country the government should take care of you. This is one thing I don't mind my tax dollars going to.

#3 Unread post by **dr_bar** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:03 pm

oldschoolorange wrote:reguardless of what term they use crime or war, If you are wounded in service of your country the government should take care of you. This is one thing I don't mind my tax dollars going to.

I agree wholely with your statement, but being taken care of usually means a good pension. This compensation is like criminal compensation awarded by WCB for injuries received during an act of crime ie:

You're an innocent bystander during a robbery and you get shot. The WCB will award you a monetary payment for injuries received.

The ruling in England states that injuries received while not actively engaging the insurgents in offensive operations, are compensatable the same way.

Quite a different point of view...

#4 Unread post by **Kal** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:32 pm

My personal opinion, and it may not be the most popular one in the world, is that servicemen wounded in the service of their country should not receive compensation as such.

They should be supported to enable them to have a life as close to normal as possible once they leave the service.

There should be a bargain between service personal and the state. Service personnel should accept that they may be wounded or killed in the service of their country. The states side of the bargain is too loook after them or their dependants should that happen.

So compensation - no. Support for personnel and their families yes.

Mind you I have a big problem with the compensation culture anyway. It should exist as a means to make sure that I don't lose money while I am unable to work, mend/replace my broken bike and enable me to have appropriate medical treatment such as chiropracty. It should not be used as 'free money' which is what so many people seem to view it as.

Occasionally I will be grabbed by some compensation frm while I am out. "Have you had an accident at work or outside the home in the last three years"

Well yes I have, but none that could have been avoided by me if I had been paying more attention.

Theres an advert that runs on daytime tv. "I was fitting a burglar alarm and was given the wrong type of ladder. It slipped and I fell crushing my hand and damaging my shoulder. I spoke to **** and they got me a payout of ten thousand pounds."

If you are any good at your job you'd know it was the wrong type of ladder. Additionally as you were working above one storey you should have had a second man to steady the ladder for you, so what were you doing on the ladder?

Just whose fault was it? You have three answers and the first two don't count.

So yeah, support for service personnel, should they be Armed Forces, Emergency services or any other branch of Government employee who was put into harms way, but not compensation.

macktruckturner · Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

I actually agree largely with Kal. Nobody forced me to enlist the day before OIF kicked off. In fact, a number of people (the NCOIC of the Houston MEPS included) protested my choice to enlist as an Infantryman given a number of things (college, test scores, etc.). The fact remains that I made my choices of my own free will, knowing fully well that BadThings(tm) could happen. Should the worst occur, my family will recieve more than enough to put me in the ground. There is support in place should things happen that significantly change my physical abilities - but those are not sufficient to become entirely dependent on .gov, and that is how it should be. A suppliment, yes - but I don't believe it is my employer's duty to pay for me to live should something happen that keeps me from operating at the level I currently operate at. I'll do what I can do, they can help, but I don't expect to be able to just sit on my "O Ring" and collect a check... I couldn't do that anyway.

CNF2002 · #6 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:06 am

Caring for your troops and giving them free medical care, help for their family to pay bills while the soldier can't work, etc...great.

But why are they getting a million dollars?

-Holiday · #7 Unread post by **-Holiday** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:51 am

CNF2002 wrote:Caring for your troops and giving them free medical care, help for their family to pay bills while the soldier can't work, etc...great.

But why are they getting a million dollars?

because they wont get that limb back.

CNF2002 · #8 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:01 am

Right. But how does a million dollars help? What they should be getting is free healthcare for life, free access to the latest prosthetics, etc.

To me, handing them a check for a million dollars seems like the govt is just throwing cash at them in hopes that the problem will just go away.

-Holiday · #9 Unread post by **-Holiday** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:02 am

bionic arms are expensive.

CNF2002 · #10 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:04 am

-Holiday wrote:bionic arms are expensive.

Yeah, but the govt should be paying for it anyway.

Who gets a million bucks anyway? Hundreds of thousands of vets have been wounded, permanently, by the various wars. Why not give a million bucks each to all of them?