ARE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SOLDIERS EXPLOITED?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by brazenhussy, Aug 7, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. (taken from the Daily Express:

    THE Ministry of Defence has been attacked for paying out almost £500,000 to a typist diagnosed with a form of repetitive strain injury.

    The revelation has led to ­military chiefs being accused of treating soldiers in combat zones as second-class to civilian staff and service personnel with desk jobs.

    The award is almost 30 times that given to a soldier with comparative wounds resulting from combat and nine times more than service personnel would get for losing a leg.

    Yesterday it emerged it is not the only big claim handed out to backroom workers – as new figures revealed a civilian worker was paid more than £200,000 for a back strain caused by lifting a printer
    ."

    All our armed forces are being exploited,now more have been promised to Dafur.
    Politicians start wars,the pity is they do not have to fight in them, its not good enough to say that fighting is what a soldier does but he/she should not be expected to put their lives on the line with dodgy equipment etc. in any war especially those wars which are not in defence of the realm.The two conflicts mentioned have escalated out of hand and service personnel are dying needlessly because no politician who started them can stop them,they'll just go on sending young people to those hell holes, not spending enough money to make sure they are all looked after but at the same time they are still enjoying their junkets,cash shortages or not.
    Can any politician say how long these conflicts will last, they will hedge but not put their heads on the block,families will mourn ,a part of a generation lost in the end, for what?
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    By pointing the finger at 'military chiefs' the media and others are letting the Govt off the hook. In the cases of both service personnel on the one hand and civilian employees of any organisation on the other, it is the law which is at fault. Civilian employees are protected against the malfeasance of their employer even if it is the Government - hence the RSI award (trivialised in reporting but RSI is a very serious condition indeed, and, for instance, may mean that a person can no longer use a keyboard and therefore becomes long-term unemployable in their skill set). Service people injured in action come under quite a different set of rules and are thus sold short, and the result is an abomination. What is needed is for compensation levels for Service people to be assessed in exactly the same way as everyone else, so that their awards properly cater for their ongoing needs; after all the cost to the soldier or sailor for a given injury is if anything more than for the civilian as invaliding may well leave the service person with no job at all and no qualification to get one. Calumniating civilians for their claims only helps the Govt to avoid the issue. It is nothing to do with uniformed officers at all - only politicians and the covil servants who administer the rules.

    In the latter case (perhaps because of targets?) the original offer to the serviceman may well underbid the true entitlement and should ALWAYS be appealed. If the ward is then increased (surprise, surprise), it should be appealed AGAIN to arrive at a settlement which is 'fair' under the existing unfair rules. If this again succeeds it is total proof that the civil servant making the original award deliberately chiselled the disabled service person.
     
  3. Seaweed has a valid point. 2 different sets of rule for 2 different classes. I know having been there, seen it, done it.
     

Share This Page