Fair compensation?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by drunken_engineer, Apr 15, 2008.

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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7347691.stm

    Surprised this one hasn't been posted before now.
    So, Royal and Pongo get ITRO £100K, RAF typist gets ITRO £400K, Iraqi civi gets £2M
  2. The phrases bloody outrageous and taking the p**s spring to mind.

    Have Messrs Shiner and Chuckabutty had a hand (ot snout) in this?
  3. Outrage bandwagon already rolling on ARRSE (link). One point for consideration is that the Iraqi lad injured by our soldiers' actions is only 13-years old. £2m will only provide him with around £50k per year to pay for his care and compensate him for his lack of mobility and loss of earnings for the rest of his life. Would you have willingly lost the use of your legs at the age of 13 for that?

    Even so, this does highlight the inadequacy of compensation awards made to severely injured Service personnel.
  4. It would seem that levels of compensation paid out to civilians of any nationality are fair. Unfortunately when it comes to members of HM forces this is not the case. well past time for a level playing field.
  5. He also seemed to get a free pass into the country! :mad:
    Open the flood gates
  6. As my colleague said, you are a civvie minding your own business, having made friends with the British and you get shot and paralysed by an gun going off held by a British soldier. In the UK (aside from criminal issues) this would be looked at in common law in the tort of negligence [do I have a duty of care, have I breached that duty, did my actions cause harm (Donoghue v Stevenson)] - from the sound of it either someone was negligent or someone back here is feeling very very guilty.

    But as NG said, it does rather highlight the inadaquacies of the compo for our lads.
  7. But Rosina, would you not agree that estimating the loss of income from a child has always been problematic. Most compensation is based on actuarial tables of future earnings usually set by some indication of what the plaintiff is/has/would be earning. Over here, the Grand and Toy trilogy struggled with the very issue of what to award a child.

    For the others on the thread: Future care costs are actually easier to calculate, which I would surmise is the bulk of this decision. Children and loss of future earnings has never yielded historically that high an award.

    Now while I can understand the compensation awarded for a service person and their injuries, that is a whole other area of law (so when we outrage over the two significantly different awards, we're in fact, comparing apples and oranges).

    If you want to something to focus your outrage upon, try the insurances and actuarials that determine what a limb is worth and where the ceiling is for catastrophic injuries begins and ends. If you read any insurance policy that covers injuries (pick your auto, home, life) you'll find tables that list off what each body part is worth. That is what governments, courts, insurance policies use in deciding the level of award. Challenge the tables if you want to see more given.
  8. Yes ND, although I should tell you I am a conveyancer who some while ago did Tort as an option! I am unable therefore to comment on quantum! I merely wished to encourage debate other than the usual 'high horse' stuff that seems so prevalent on this website at times!
  9. I do think that one should consider the fact that serviceman injured will in addition to the cash payout will also receive Free lifelong medical care and a lifelong tax free pension. Just a point which I think needs to be taken into account when trying to compare like with like

  10. We should all remember that only a few years ago there was NO compensation for Servicemen and women injured in the course of their duty. It was considered all part of the risk we accepted when we signed up to fight for Queen and Country that we might get injured. Now there is some compensation paid out PLUS an index linked war pension for life (we should add the capital sum needed to generate this income to the immediate compensation award to get a true picture of the financial recompense) plus free medical care from the NHS for life. Whilst it may seem that civilians get treated differently to service people, we should bear in mind that the possibility of injury is not part of the risk civilians accept in everyday life -in contrast to the services.
  11. Quantum might be decided at more realistic levels were the judiciary more socially representative of those who are likely recipients of compensation. Sadly members of HM Forces injured whilst employed by HM Government seem to be treated as less than human. The hope in the future is that HMG's 'cannon fodder' attitude to injured service personnel will change through litigation - but that is down to BAFF etc being willing to use the Human Rights Act to their advantage.
  12. Ah yes, thingy, let's blame the judges who follow the actuarial tables on what a loss of limb is worth.

    I'm afraid it's not the judges who set those tables but the little people with pocket protectors, calculators and a math formula that have historically determined the amounts of what an injury is worth.

    Break through those actuarial limits and you'll see a different scope of compensation and awards. Same goes for the risk factors and tables for insurance. We recently got the CF to up the maximum insurance payout to 450K through a member purchased policy.

    I'm an advocate for making sure members are insured up to the hilt before they deploy and not to rely on the "generousity" of the government of the day to see them right if injured. It has always been far too whimsical and depends entirely on the flavour du jour of the ruling party's head set.
  13. In his country if he had a well paid job at the age of 20 (a thirteen year old does not have an income) he would earn a pittance (£100K Would make him the equivelent of a multi millionaire)

    Our servicemen are average age 20 the same age as he would start earning a pittance
    A bloody RAF typist gets £400k for RSI and a Marine with no legs gets £280k


    Jack McH
  14. I think you should check how much that pension is worth, and the fact that it is taxable so affects other benefits
    Then try living on it yourself having done nothing for your country, it is not even a standard minimum wage

    If you were to be an immigrant then the flood gates will open and you will get many large payments from the UK into your coffers

    (Shot by a friend £2m, shot by the enemy £280k providing you are complety destroyed) lose an eye or arm £10k live and work with that then support your family

    Jack McH
  15. The Guaranteed Income Payment, paid under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, although a pittance, is Tax Free.

Share This Page