ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Ace_Rimmer

I love the way the value of anything in the news gets compared to how much a soldier gets paid/receives in compensation/kit costs/new vehicles etc.

Now I'm not saying that the bin man deserved the payout but what the f*ck has it got to do with the compensation that a solider receives for sustaining an injury they are well aware of the risk of, doing what they are paid to do?

So yes, it's a ridiculous amount of money to be given for tripping over a pavement slab and banging your knee but any further comparison should not be made.

Edit to add - I am vehemently against the blame/claim culture though.

It's got to do with the majority of injured servicemen & women will require month's,if not years,of therapy &,in some cases,round the clock care,re-homeing as their existing home may not be suitable anymore & a lot of things not covered by NHS or Private Health Insurance.

But the mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, 25, who lost both legs after stepping on a landmine in Afghanistan in 2006, slammed the payout. Diane Dernie, 51, fought for her son’s payout to be hiked from £152,150 to an eventual £540,000.

He also lost the use of one arm, his speech and most of his memory.

On the other hand:

Soldiers are paid between £48,875 and £63,825 for losing a foot or for developing a mental disorder.

If ever there was a clear incentive for chaps to get themselves checked out in case of PTSD, this is it. For those fighting shy of going for a check-up, not only could you be diagnosed and then treated for the side effects of the conflicts you are involved in, you may actually see some recompense if your family or work life has suffered as a result.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Ace_Rimmer

I love the way the value of anything in the news gets compared to how much a soldier gets paid/receives in compensation/kit costs/new vehicles etc.

Now I'm not saying that the bin man deserved the payout but what the f*ck has it got to do with the compensation that a solider receives for sustaining an injury they are well aware of the risk of, doing what they are paid to do?

So yes, it's a ridiculous amount of money to be given for tripping over a pavement slab and banging your knee but any further comparison should not be made.

Edit to add - I am vehemently against the blame/claim culture though.

And the binman wasn't aware that he'd be walking up and down pavements all day long? FFS!

How long before the Elf and Safety folk have binmen trussed up with elbow and knee pads???

Nothing new here, aprt from the amount. There was a street in Belfast which had so many claims on it. (The uneven bits were over the magic limit where the council deems itself instantly liable) It became known as 'the golden mile'

Refuse collector Alan Shambrook, 55, fell badly on his left knee while on .

Mr Shambrook has had to take 15 months off work and cannot lift heavy weights or swim. The former binman, who lives with his wife in Stevenage, had to take a lower-paid job driving a road sweeper because he cannot raise his arms above his head.

Can't lift his arms above his head
Can't lift weights or swim

But can drive a roadsweeper
So why does he need compo isn't that a better job

Originally Posted by vvaannmmaann

Originally Posted by Ace_Rimmer

I love the way the value of anything in the news gets compared to how much a soldier gets paid/receives in compensation/kit costs/new vehicles etc.

Now I'm not saying that the bin man deserved the payout but what the f*ck has it got to do with the compensation that a solider receives for sustaining an injury they are well aware of the risk of, doing what they are paid to do?

So yes, it's a ridiculous amount of money to be given for tripping over a pavement slab and banging your knee but any further comparison should not be made.

Edit to add - I am vehemently against the blame/claim culture though.

Please re-read your post.Then come back and apologise.

No. I don't think so.
I'm not for one second suggesting that soldiers get enough compensation or that dozy feckers like the bin man deserve one penny. What I'm saying is that everything like this gets converted to the Soldier Currency.

It opens soldiers up to the "well they knew what they were signing up to " argument somewhat.

If you need to compare how much something is worth then surely you have to first decide what is the noblest cause?

At the risk of a slating I shall be pedantic.

We live in a blame and claim society and have done for some time. If the binman truly injured himself to a degree that he is unable to work and earn the same amount of money through no fault of his own (as found by the court), then he is entitled to compensation. In the same way if you were out running and due to a raised paving slab you injured yourself, you'd blame the council.

Comparing his compensation with that of someone losing a foot on service is just sensationalism and wrong. Losing a foot in itself (and I do not include any psychlogical issues) doesn't preclude you from continuing to lead an active life or indeed working to your full potential. I know of a guy just down the street who has a serious back problem (from service) that prevents him from doing anywhere near what I do.

The article also fails to take into account that service compensation should be linked with war pension which may also attract the lower level of income component should someone find themselves in a situation (like the binman) where they are unable to achieve a comparable wage. As well as NHS priority care through the WP card scheme (although priority is often defined in different ways by different health care authorities).

I'm not saying that I agree with the blame and claim culture as it is beginning to take away responsibility for an individuals actions. But if we didn't live in a society where compensation is the norm, I suspect that injured servicemen would be the first to feel the brunt. Blame can be so easily attributed either way; "But did you not think that it was too heavy to lift on your own?" or "Were you not briefed that the verges of the road might be mined?"

Aologies if this goes against the grain ...

Originally Posted by spike7451

Originally Posted by Ace_Rimmer

I love the way the value of anything in the news gets compared to how much a soldier gets paid/receives in compensation/kit costs/new vehicles etc.

Now I'm not saying that the bin man deserved the payout but what the f*ck has it got to do with the compensation that a solider receives for sustaining an injury they are well aware of the risk of, doing what they are paid to do?

So yes, it's a ridiculous amount of money to be given for tripping over a pavement slab and banging your knee but any further comparison should not be made.

Edit to add - I am vehemently against the blame/claim culture though.

It's got to do with the majority of injured servicemen & women will require month's,if not years,of therapy &,in some cases,round the clock care,re-homeing as their existing home may not be suitable anymore & a lot of things not covered by NHS or Private Health Insurance.

But the mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, 25, who lost both legs after stepping on a landmine in Afghanistan in 2006, slammed the payout. Diane Dernie, 51, fought for her son’s payout to be hiked from £152,150 to an eventual £540,000.

He also lost the use of one arm, his speech and most of his memory.

Ok, I can see how the bit in bold might come across as though I meant they knew what to expect. What I mean was that soldiers do get compensation for injury (the value of which is obviously open for discussion) that they sustain in the line of duty.

The rationale behind the blame/claim culture is that the "victim" has been exposed to an unnecessary/avoidable risk that they aren't supposed to deal with. Of course "walking on a pavement" probably shouldn't be classed as an unnecessary risk and therefore the bin man should have got nothing except perhaps a bit of sick pay while he recovered.

You could hardly argue that a soldier getting hurt in Afghanistan was an easily avoidable accident and therefore the compensation comes from a completely different rationale.

So yes, it's an outrage that a bin man gets 57k for tripping up and Ben Parkinson was offered 152k for his injuries BUT they're not comparable.