News2 mins ago
Is this fair?
16 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=560640&in_page_i d=1770&ct=5
Can this be fair, �285,00 compensation to a soldier after sustaining horrific injuries, including the loss of both his legs, whilst serving his country?
�2million pounds compansation to an Iraqi boy, who was talking to a soldier, when the soldier accidently dropped his rifle causing it to discharge a bullet into the boy's spine.
Incidently this soldier was court martialled, and ordered to also pay the boy �2,000 compansation. He is now no longer in the Army.
Nice to see how we look after our own.
Can this be fair, �285,00 compensation to a soldier after sustaining horrific injuries, including the loss of both his legs, whilst serving his country?
�2million pounds compansation to an Iraqi boy, who was talking to a soldier, when the soldier accidently dropped his rifle causing it to discharge a bullet into the boy's spine.
Incidently this soldier was court martialled, and ordered to also pay the boy �2,000 compansation. He is now no longer in the Army.
Nice to see how we look after our own.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if the soldier was working for the army when this happened, why did he have to pay compensation himself? considering he probably wasn't standing there holding the rifle and talking to this boy on his day off(assuming they ever get one) then he must have been following orders of somekind, therefor it wasn't his fault surely?
Something that certain is unfair- The MoD were quite happy to give out �2million to this boy. Whereas our poor soldiers who have fought for their own country, have to fight nail and tooth for any money that they get incompensation.
The soldier with leg injuries will never recover mentally and physically from his injuries or what he saw there.
The iraq boy, who is being looked after on our NHS in our country sounds like he's well on his way. And no doubt he'll claim for a permanent visa to live here in a few months, and be on UK gov benefits for the rest of his life.
Bet his friends start befriending UK soldier now too.
Why can't his country pay for him?
The soldier with leg injuries will never recover mentally and physically from his injuries or what he saw there.
The iraq boy, who is being looked after on our NHS in our country sounds like he's well on his way. And no doubt he'll claim for a permanent visa to live here in a few months, and be on UK gov benefits for the rest of his life.
Bet his friends start befriending UK soldier now too.
Why can't his country pay for him?
the limits in soldiers compensation are contractual i believe but in a way thats beside the point - If i was playing rugby and during the normal course of the game a tackle when a bit awry and my leg was broken by another person should i expect compensation on the same level as if I had been walking down the street minding my own business and then someone jumped on me and broke my leg... Of course not. Rugby is has an inherent risk of injury so some of the blame for my injury will always be my own because i took part in a dangerous act.
War and the life of a soldier in general is a much more dangerous thing than rugby - these soldiers have voluntarily opted for this life so their compensation when the inherent risks of being a soldier do in fact occur are much much lower than a civilian that happens to be injured due to the reckless or negligent behaviour of another
War and the life of a soldier in general is a much more dangerous thing than rugby - these soldiers have voluntarily opted for this life so their compensation when the inherent risks of being a soldier do in fact occur are much much lower than a civilian that happens to be injured due to the reckless or negligent behaviour of another
You can't compare the two cases;
In the first case, the person volunteered to go into the army and therefore chose to risk his life. He should (in my opinion) be given sufficient money to ensure that his medical costs will be paid for for life and have a decent life (as decent as life can be if you are brain damaged and have horrific injuries). If he had dependants (spouse / children) then they should have an income which is commensurate to his job.
In the second case, a 13 year old child was shot due to the negligence of a British soldier. He has been brought to the UK to ensure that he is given the best chance of recovery and rehabilitation. I am unsure as to what he should be paid in compensation, but that payment should certainly take into account his age.
I think with all these types of payments, there should be a fixed sum at the beginning and then an annual payment which is reviewed. If the MoD paid out on the basis that they were told he would never walk again but he does recover, then obviously that is wrong.
To answer ChocolateChip's question, the child can now walk on crutches after 4 years rehabilitation. His parents are still in Iraq. You cannot claim most benefits if you have �2 million pounds as most benefits are means tested. Yes, I am sure that most of his friends would love to be crippled and risk death to get a pay out. But why let facts get in the way of a general rant?
In the first case, the person volunteered to go into the army and therefore chose to risk his life. He should (in my opinion) be given sufficient money to ensure that his medical costs will be paid for for life and have a decent life (as decent as life can be if you are brain damaged and have horrific injuries). If he had dependants (spouse / children) then they should have an income which is commensurate to his job.
In the second case, a 13 year old child was shot due to the negligence of a British soldier. He has been brought to the UK to ensure that he is given the best chance of recovery and rehabilitation. I am unsure as to what he should be paid in compensation, but that payment should certainly take into account his age.
I think with all these types of payments, there should be a fixed sum at the beginning and then an annual payment which is reviewed. If the MoD paid out on the basis that they were told he would never walk again but he does recover, then obviously that is wrong.
To answer ChocolateChip's question, the child can now walk on crutches after 4 years rehabilitation. His parents are still in Iraq. You cannot claim most benefits if you have �2 million pounds as most benefits are means tested. Yes, I am sure that most of his friends would love to be crippled and risk death to get a pay out. But why let facts get in the way of a general rant?
I'm not saying they will get shot in the back. I'm saying they'll claim something happened in order to be compensated. Just like they won't increase the compensation for soldiers in case they claim.
It just fustrates me. That our soldiers are given so little money, and will probably not have that much to live on when they're about 60. You can't tell me thats not true?
It just fustrates me. That our soldiers are given so little money, and will probably not have that much to live on when they're about 60. You can't tell me thats not true?
The Daily Mail article doesn't portray the �2 million compensation in the right light. The MOD chose to pay the �2 million because they knew that with the weight of medical evidence a court case would very likely have resulted in a judgment giving a bigger payout. By settling out of court they have probably saved hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs and saved a similar amount in compensation payments too. In the real world the courts make these high awards- we can't bury our head in the sand and refuse to pay up.
I see IggyB & oneeyedvic are taking their usual stance, and supporting our brave troops in their usual manner. let's hope there will never come a time again when the lives of the likes of these two, need protecting by our troops.
IggyB's analogy regarding sustaining a broken leg playing rugby, and someone jumping on his leg while walking down the street, doesn't quite hold water.
Taking into account the way things work in this country. The guy who stood on IggyB's leg would most likely claim that it was IggyB who was at fault for being in the way, and then claiming compensation for a badly twisted ankle, plus the fact that he was delayed in going about his business.
So no pay out for IggyB there, but seeing most Rugby clubs take out insurance for their players, he would be in line for a good pay out from them.
But to get back to the realms of reality. By paying out this �2 million the MOD ( although they say this is a one off) have set themselves a precedent, which the lawyers will jump on. Which means that every tax payer in the country will soon be footing the bill for much more than just one payment of a couple of millon pounds.
How does that go down with you two?
IggyB's analogy regarding sustaining a broken leg playing rugby, and someone jumping on his leg while walking down the street, doesn't quite hold water.
Taking into account the way things work in this country. The guy who stood on IggyB's leg would most likely claim that it was IggyB who was at fault for being in the way, and then claiming compensation for a badly twisted ankle, plus the fact that he was delayed in going about his business.
So no pay out for IggyB there, but seeing most Rugby clubs take out insurance for their players, he would be in line for a good pay out from them.
But to get back to the realms of reality. By paying out this �2 million the MOD ( although they say this is a one off) have set themselves a precedent, which the lawyers will jump on. Which means that every tax payer in the country will soon be footing the bill for much more than just one payment of a couple of millon pounds.
How does that go down with you two?
Maybe you can point out where I am not supporting the troops?
Is it where I say: He should (in my opinion) be given sufficient money to ensure that his medical costs will be paid for for life or where I say If he had dependants (spouse / children) then they should have an income which is commensurate to his job.
I see you twist Iggy's analogy - so to complete the analogy, your soldier who dropped his weapon obviously sued the child. Oh no he didn't - you are just making rubbish up.
I know you don't like immigrants who come over and cause extra costs due to the translation services that they require - I am just wondering if you actually read English? You certainly don't seem to understand it.
Is it where I say: He should (in my opinion) be given sufficient money to ensure that his medical costs will be paid for for life or where I say If he had dependants (spouse / children) then they should have an income which is commensurate to his job.
I see you twist Iggy's analogy - so to complete the analogy, your soldier who dropped his weapon obviously sued the child. Oh no he didn't - you are just making rubbish up.
I know you don't like immigrants who come over and cause extra costs due to the translation services that they require - I am just wondering if you actually read English? You certainly don't seem to understand it.
And yes, they may have set a precedent that if a soldier drops his weapon and the bullet makes a child crippled, then the child would be in line for a payout. Am I worried that this will happen again? No, not really. Maybe you have a low opinion of the armed services if you think that the tax payer will be paying out for this sort of event time after time.
Whilst you are studying English, maybe you can also look up in law what precedent means.
Whilst you are studying English, maybe you can also look up in law what precedent means.
Oneeyedvic.
Usual tactics I see, Finding that calling me a racist does not have any effect on me whatsoever, you have to revert to some other way, in an attempt to belittle me.
Let's try accusing him of not understanding English, I hear you say. well for your information I do understand English quite well. What I don't understand is when it is writtten in such a way that it does not make any sense whatsoever.
i.e.
I see you twist Iggy's analogy - so to complete the analogy, your soldier who dropped his weapon obviously sued the child. Oh no he didn't - you are just making rubbish up. ??????????????
You then try and tell me that I do not understand law. Since I have not studied law, then maybe I do not. What little law I do understand is the fact that if one grants an out of court settlemernt, or a particular judgement has been set, then it opens up precedence for similar cases, to be so settled. Barristers spend most of their time researching archive cases, so as to refer to them to support their claims.
In closing do you alway speak for IggyB / Gromit etc?
If you are their spokesperson, may I suggest to them that they enlist the services of someone who is more able to take on a person, who obviously has much more intellect than yourself?
Usual tactics I see, Finding that calling me a racist does not have any effect on me whatsoever, you have to revert to some other way, in an attempt to belittle me.
Let's try accusing him of not understanding English, I hear you say. well for your information I do understand English quite well. What I don't understand is when it is writtten in such a way that it does not make any sense whatsoever.
i.e.
I see you twist Iggy's analogy - so to complete the analogy, your soldier who dropped his weapon obviously sued the child. Oh no he didn't - you are just making rubbish up. ??????????????
You then try and tell me that I do not understand law. Since I have not studied law, then maybe I do not. What little law I do understand is the fact that if one grants an out of court settlemernt, or a particular judgement has been set, then it opens up precedence for similar cases, to be so settled. Barristers spend most of their time researching archive cases, so as to refer to them to support their claims.
In closing do you alway speak for IggyB / Gromit etc?
If you are their spokesperson, may I suggest to them that they enlist the services of someone who is more able to take on a person, who obviously has much more intellect than yourself?
Okay, you understand English but you didn't understand my post. Let me try again:
Iggyb gave an analogy.
You twisted his analogy by suggesting that the person who did the injuring then sued the victim.
I pointed out that if you go back to the original story (rather than the analogy) and the victim was sued by the injured party, the victim is the child and the 'injured party' is the soldier.
If your twist on IggyB's analogy is to 'hold water' then the soldier would sue the child.
This obviously did not happen - hence you are making rubbish up.
With regards the settlement - obviously you do understand since you state: ...then it opens up precedence for similar cases... - and this is my point. You said earlier Which means that every tax payer in the country will soon be footing the bill for much more than just one payment of a couple of millon pounds.
Now look at those two statements you made again. Do you think that there are going to be a lot of similar cases. If there is then a precedent has been set. If you think that this was a freak accident, then why are you worried about this country footing the bill for much more than one payment
In closing do you alway speak for IggyB / Gromit etc? No, very obviously I speak for myself. Am I not allowed to pick up on ridiculous points that you have made? If these are the new rules of AB (as the new self appointed AbEd - isn't that what you call it), then maybe we should just have one person who is allowed to answer per question.
And unsurprisingly, you have still not answered my question:
Maybe you can point out where I am not supporting the troops?
Iggyb gave an analogy.
You twisted his analogy by suggesting that the person who did the injuring then sued the victim.
I pointed out that if you go back to the original story (rather than the analogy) and the victim was sued by the injured party, the victim is the child and the 'injured party' is the soldier.
If your twist on IggyB's analogy is to 'hold water' then the soldier would sue the child.
This obviously did not happen - hence you are making rubbish up.
With regards the settlement - obviously you do understand since you state: ...then it opens up precedence for similar cases... - and this is my point. You said earlier Which means that every tax payer in the country will soon be footing the bill for much more than just one payment of a couple of millon pounds.
Now look at those two statements you made again. Do you think that there are going to be a lot of similar cases. If there is then a precedent has been set. If you think that this was a freak accident, then why are you worried about this country footing the bill for much more than one payment
In closing do you alway speak for IggyB / Gromit etc? No, very obviously I speak for myself. Am I not allowed to pick up on ridiculous points that you have made? If these are the new rules of AB (as the new self appointed AbEd - isn't that what you call it), then maybe we should just have one person who is allowed to answer per question.
And unsurprisingly, you have still not answered my question:
Maybe you can point out where I am not supporting the troops?
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News3 mins ago
News5 mins ago
A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank24 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics24 mins ago
