Tw@ts

[Bitburger]

Now this makes me mad, real mad. First they send us to war on pretty shakey legal grounds, then then do not provide the right kit for us to do the job, now this...........


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=382612&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

 

[Bluntend]

There's more discussion about this on PPRUNE...http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=220989

 

[Mighty_Wokka]

Ah the 'Daily Mail' scoops again...

I would maybe read what a real newspaper has to say on the matter first instead of this rag.

 

[Twonston Pickle]

I have to agree with MW; what the MOD are really saying is "we provide a lump sum and pension as it is." I know that it is still not much comfort to the bereaved but how much do they want/need?

Rant on

As well as the benefits that the MOD would give me (enough to support my partner in the unfortunate event of my demise), I decided to top up provisions to make sure that she would be more than adaquately taken care of (financially, not by my best mate!). What the MOD wants to avoid is some families receiving the standard payout and some getting double/treble etc.

Death is always a tragedy but an ever present risk in our occupation; we should not be able to sue the MOD for any serviceman's death or we would never be sent to war, legal or otherwise! Standard civilian laws and practices should not and cannot apply to every facet of military life.

Rant off.

My thoughts are always with those who have lost loved ones. My fiancee and I talked/cried at length before I deployed about the possibility but concluded that whatever happens, I was doing the right thing, not for country but for my colleagues. Many of the deaths so far have been in defending other colleagues or those too weak to defend themselves; we can take pride in their individual actions even if we deplore the actions of the politicians.

 

[wobbly]

Although I agree that being in the forces means that your life is at risk on ops. However, what I do not agree with is the fact that they are being threatened by the MOD. This surely isnt at all legal as no matter what happens their widows pension should be untouchable. I agree bitburger, this truly does hit a nerve.

 

[gemarriott]

My own view on this is simple, the British fighting man is usually prepared to accept the risks his/her (PC bull**** respected) chosen occupation brings with it. However if the cnuts in charge of the country send you to fight on shaky legal grounds and then deny you the right kit either through negligence or parsimony (being posbee) then your family should be compensated. That compensation should be on top of any pension and lump sums to which the family is entitled and not at the expense of said pensions.

Just another example of that halfwit B-liar's fcuked up thinking if you ask meDT_Xtremez_32:

 

[Bombhead]

DT_Xtremez_32:

At the end of the day, compensation should not come into it if a fellow member of the Armed Forces pays the ultimate price for his Country and Government there should be no question to answer the family should be taken care of financially. As for going to war in the first place I think it stinks, if someone did the same to us or the mighty USA there would be hell to pay. If you think the Government gives a poo about you or me you must be very narrow minded. No wonder 50 engineers a month are PVRing.


My sympathy to all the families that have lost loved ones.

 

[gemarriott]

DT_Xtremez_32:



My sympathy to all the families that have lost loved ones.

not only to those who have lost love ones but also to the wounded and their families, as always forgotten by the politicians. Still no visit by the Liar in Chief to the lads and lasses in hospital.DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Twonston Pickle]

Compensation should only be awarded in extreme circumstances.

The deaths of the 6 policemen, whilst tragic, are a very arguable case for compensation. However, no matter how much kit, gucci or otherwise, we issue, some deaths will still occur. If a death is due to negligence by the chain of command then the individual's family should sue the SNCO/Officer concerned (Crown immunity no longer exists).

The death of Sgt Roberts by, allegedly, his own side also represents another arguable case for compensation, particularly as he had handed his EBA to another soldier. However, the situation was not in the ultimate control of the troops at the time and the tragic circumstances arose.

Besides, anyone who has worn EBA will know that all it does is hold your lifeless body together to make it easier for your mates to pick you up. Moreover, it only covers a small area and the ignorant public do not have a clue how why or what it covers. The Scum would have us believe we can wander around, fighting like ROBOCOP.

I didn't agree with going to war but lets stop the infighting, politics and speculation. Ultimately, the responsibility for a serviceman's death lies with the person who pulled the trigger/detonated the bomb.

 

[gemarriott]

Compensation should only be awarded in extreme circumstances.


I didn't agree with going to war but lets stop the infighting, politics and speculation. Ultimately, the responsibility for a serviceman's death lies with the person who pulled the trigger/detonated the bomb.

I wouldn't argue that Compensation should be awarded in every case! But where it is a case of neglect by the powers that be in not providing the right kit or enough of the right kit then it should certainly be qawarde and stand fully independent of any pension awards and dues.

As for who is ultimately reponsible you view is totally wrong. the man who pulls the trigger is physically responsible. the cnuts in whitehall and Washington who fcuk their jobs and ultimately caused this balls up are the ones who are ultimately responsible.

Ever wondered why that whilst those pillocks now in charge and starting wars left right and centre were of an age to carry out military service they had shoulder length hair and carried anti war banners and CND posters? or perhaps even why British Soldiers end up on murder charges for defending themselves?

Well I have wondered! Was Guy Fawkes the only man to enter Parliament with good intentionsDT_Xtremez_28:

 

[Plumber]

This may be way off thread here, but the Doctor who has refused to go out of area because the Iraq invasion was unlawful, has his court case start today. In the pre trial hearing the judge said the invasion was unlawful where this takes the trial I have no idea. However in my book, if these guys have died due to unlawful actions by our lords and masters there is a case for compensation to be decided upon by the courts and in no way should this affect the pension the widows receive. If the MOD and parliament has f*cked up it by allowing TB to have his way then they need to pay the price.

 

[Twonston Pickle]

Point conceeded, I clearly used the wrong word. However, I am still disappointed by the lack of anger/vitriol directed, by the press, at the perpertrators of these acts; it's almost as if the press has some sympathy for their hideous acts?

I do agree that our shirking politicians of all parties bear the ultimate responsibility for getting us into this mess and that compensation should stand alone but there should also be much less sensationalism of each death like they are all avoidable.

You can imagine the headlines: Shock, horror - Soldier dies beacuse he didn't return fire fast enough! The furious public are calling for an inquiry into why the soldier wasn't trained to react faster. Some have even called on the PM, Tony Bliar, to resign over the incident etc etc.. It seems a bit fetched but you get the ides.

 

[Bluntend]

If we ignore the whole compensation issue (about which I have my own views - the UK slipping further and further into a US style litigation culture, idiots suing because they're too dumb to read warning signs or exercise common sense, etc), there is another issue. Somebody needs to hold the Government, or Government Ministers to count for their actions. If the family of a dead serviceman or woman feel that their relative died unlawfully or that the government was negligent they have a right, IMHO, to redress.

It doesn't always have to be about getting thousands of pounds in compensation, more about proving a point. If my partner (who is in the forces) is killed in action, I would be devastated. I would take whatever pension I was entitled to and try to get over my loss. If, however, my partner's life was lost because of p!ss poor decisions being made by our lords and master in Whitehall or Downing Street then rest assured I would not give in without a fight. A win in my favour would not bring my partner back but if it stopped things being swept under the carpet and the same mistakes being made in the future, then that for me might make my loss easier to bare. I for one would rather see smaller financial awards being made to complainants but harsher punishments being dished out to those in the wrong.

I know I’m going off on a tangent here but its like a £50k-a-week premier league footballer getting a £1000 fine and a 12-month ban for drink driving. Better to give him a £10 fine and a 10-year ban. Likewise, if a military commander or, dare I say it, Defence or Prime Minister is proven to have acted negligently, they too should suffer a harsher punishment (perhaps even a custodial one) and not just a cursory slap on the wrist. Perhaps then, those in positions of ultimate responsibility might think a bit harder about the decisions they make.

Bluntend climbs down and packs away soapbox. Until next time…

 

[Twonston Pickle]

I have to agree with you, Bluntend. It always seems to me that the Press concentrate on the money (or not) involved and very little on the outcome/punishment. I just wish that we got away from the "everything can be solved by money" mentality. Just look at Cpl Mates who got only £12,000 for sexual discrimination rather than the 600K plus she sought.

 

[Bluntend]

There is an interesting story being covered by the BBC. A man died of toxic shock when the two doctors who had carried out routine knee surgery on the 31 year old failed to recognise the symptoms. The two were charged with manslaughter and gross negligence and given suspended sentances. One was suspended from working for a year, the other for 6 months. They're now both back at work. The NHS trust has recently been fine £100k for failing to adequately supervise the two doctors.

So what good does fining the NHS trust do besides deny them much needed funding?

 

[Bluntend]

Sister allegedly to sue MOD over death of airman shot down in Iraq (Times)

Sister allegedly to sue MOD over death of airman shot down in Iraq (Times)

Latest from defence news...

It is claimed that the sister of an RAF sergeant killed when his aircraft was shot down in Iraq plans to sue the MoD over his death. Sarah Chapman, whose brother Bob O'Connor, 38, was one of ten servicemen killed in the single biggest loss of British forces in Iraq, wants compensation from the Government on the ground that too little was done to protect the troops. A spokesman for the MoD said yesterday that no official claim had been submitted by Sergeant O'Connor's family and, until then, no comment could be made. He added that the official board of inquiry had been held into the incident and recommendations made — one of which was to fit fire-retardant protection on the aircraft.

19/04/2006

 

[Almost_done]

Lost A/C

Lost A/C

Aye this is in todays Times large article upon it.