Originally Posted by The Forty Twa

Plenty ? - I cant think of many - Firemen or RNLI, possibly police and nurses that have to work A&E on a Saturday night . Builders and drivers are all overly protected by the HSE. I cant imagine the HSE popping up in a PB to monitor that everyone gets their head down after 8 hours work.

Up until a couple of years ago construction was statistically one of the most dangerous jobs in Britain. How does the HSE prevent pile ups on motorways? Farming, strangely enough, is statistically another one of the most dangerous jobs in the UK. Deep sea fishermen take a lot of risks too.

Being a soldier, even on tour, doesn't lead to that many deaths or injuries (comparatively, obviously). We've had a lot but when you consider how many service personnel are based in Afghanistan and were based in Iraq the percentage who end up getting hurt thankfully isn't that high. It was claimed on one briefing I was in that driving your car on post tour leave is more likely to lead to injury than the tour because you think you're bullet proof and take stupid risks.

Originally Posted by tiny_lewis

On a more serious note, there is no one inherently trying to kill you as a lorry driver. I'm not arguing that soldiering is the most dangerous profession in the world, but the context between the two roles is vastly different. Haulage companies exist for one purpose only - to make money. The Armed Forces - ostensibly - defend the country.

I agree that the risks are different and in the Armed Forces they are much more obvious. That's why when you're off on tour you should go knowing that you've sat down and sorted out your affairs so that your life insurance is the right type and will pay out enough to make sure your family can continue to function, financially at least, if you don't come home again.

That said, the context of a soldier being killed in Afghanistan and a trucker dying on the M6 might be different but at the end of the day they've both died 'at work' and they both leave behind families who will probably need some kind of financial cushion (either insurance or compensation).

As far as financial help for death or injury I think the Armed Forces are a hell of a lot better off than many other professions that can legitimately claim to have just as much chance of getting hurt.

Originally Posted by .338lapua_magnum

Probably the most dangerous job just now in the UK is being a fisherman, although there are not the numbers that there used to be. No clowns from the HSE out on the North Atlantic or for that matter the Minch or North sea in winter.

Nope. IEDD is.

Irrespective of the merits of her argument or otherwise, I feel very strongly that Sheenie Chant (and Christina Schmidt) have both behaved with a level of dignity that seems to elude most of our elected leadership; perhaps both women should consider standing as Independent MPs at the next General Election and shame the government of the day into sorting out this unholy mess once and for all.

Originally Posted by Roger_The_Cat

What I can't understand is the school fees piece. Private education is a choice, not an essential. Presumably Mrs Chant is not following the Bn about so there is no reason shy her son can't be settled and educated in the State sector.

Exactly. CEA is not about the standard of education and she would not need it as any moves beyond her initial move out from SFA would not be due to the MoD.

Originally Posted by dingerr

Nope. IEDD is.

Fair point and no argument from me, however, it could be argued that the deaths within IEDD will come down as we extract from current combat missions. The fishermen will continue to face pretty well the same level of risk.

Originally Posted by .338lapua_magnum

Fair point and no argument from me, however, it could be argued that the deaths within IEDD will come down as we extract from current combat missions. The fishermen will continue to face pretty well the same level of risk.

Agree - perhaps, so as not to deviate this thread we could open one on 'the most dangerous jobs'. For me its not just the deployment ie 'the job' that is dangerous - its the stress and anguish that can appear afterwards.

Originally Posted by .338lapua_magnum

Fair point and no argument from me, however, it could be argued that the deaths within IEDD will come down as we extract from current combat missions. The fishermen will continue to face pretty well the same level of risk.

Do you not see the flaw in your own argument? Of course there will be less deaths from IEDs as we deal with less IEDs. If the fishermen didn't fish there would be less deaths from fishing.

This is quite an emotive topic and, sadly I have first hand experience of these cases. Whenever we send troops out on Ops we make sure they are insured up to the back teeth. That includes PAX and whatever else they care to invest in. If I am correct, and I am happy to be educated, the max pax payout is in the region of £150,000. I also believe there is an immediate payout of £10,000 to the NOK and then whatever Death in Benefits payout that follows.

I think the whole package amounts to a not so small amount of money. Of course, Mrs Chant and all the other widows and families would much rather have their loved one back but that isn't going to happen is it?

We've already discussed the figures she will receive so overall it's not looking too bleak for her. I suspect she will, in time, meet someone else and even go back to work (qulalified account) so she's hardly at the work house door.

Others are right to question Mr Chants earning potential or his final position within the Army; who knows what would have happened over the coming years?

Don't NOK get £500k fromAFCS as well as pension etc? So that's the mortgage and any debts squared. Then the pension to top off any earnings. Just because I die on ops doesn't really excuse my mrs from working for the rest of her life!