£402,000 for teacher hit by pupil

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by SandExporter, Sep 8, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

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

  1. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
    I realise this topic is being done to death. But I'm getting fed up with this frapping guv'mut.

    A chap in the office, ex-rupert but lovely bloke, has been sh@ting kittens for over three months as his eldest was injured in A Land of Sand. Long story short, the vehicle he was in rolled with a fatallity , few weeks later his vehicle was opened along with part of his exteremities, the lad is recovering well and is keen as to get back to his unit. Compo has been not mentioned. He just wants to get back to his job. Every credit!

    Then I read this...........

    [marq=right]A teacher has been awarded £402,000 in damages for a career-ending injury caused by a pupil in a secure unit.
    The teacher worked in Staffordshire but wishes to remain anonymous. She sustained a back injury in the attack. The National Union of Teachers negotiated the payout with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

    The union said it was the biggest in recent years. Chief legal officer Graham Clayton said it was entirely justified in the circumstances.

    A teacher suffers a violent attack almost every school day in England, according to government figures.

    There were 221 attacks on teachers last year, and 1,128 between 2000 and 2006.

    Injuries caused by violent attacks increased by a fifth over the same period. [marq=left]

    I don't expect to change the world, but FFS some parity in how the lads and lasses are lookled after.

    My kids (4 under 13s) have donated £40 to the ABF, so I matched it.

    Rant over.
  2. If the injury was severe enough to end her career then why shouldn't she get that much in compensation? Or are career ending injuries the domain of the soldier in your books? I take it that your point is that soldiers should get the same and I agree wholeheartedly, they should. One day, hopefully, the MoD will realise this and do the decent thing.

    You're right though. This subject has been done to death.
  3. What he said. The main problem with the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is that maximum payments are far less than the maximum in an action for damages, or even under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Surely that doesnt mean that other claimants shouldnt get appropriate compensation. Unless of course you think violent career-ending attacks on teachers, nurses or other public servants are only what they deserve.
  4. But isn't it true that soldiers can still sue the MoD in cases of eg negligence? Does that not invalidate the point that soldiers get less compensation than civilians?
  5. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    They can only sue for negligence when not in a combat environment.

    Hence the compensation to the soldiers pre GWII for the 84mm misfire.
  6. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    A few years ago I got a settlement out of court for a injury sustained by some w***er where I worked.He was pratting around & I nearly lost my left eye(Not my muck eye!).I got £2000.
    I did'nt sue them to get any money,that was the union's idea.I did it because the civvie company refused to accept responsability.
    Now my eye is completely better apart from it waters heavily at times.That was back in 96ish.
    Now I am ashamed & embarresed for that what I got pales into insignificance compared to what pittence our lads are getting for their injuries.
  7. Eh? I was under the impression that crown immunity has been removed?
  8. Lets not b1tch about the fact that someone got £402K, lets b1tch about the fact that Forces Personnel don't.

    What is this 84mm Misfire compensation? I don't think there should be any compo for a misfire.
  9. So by that statement I take it when someone joins the army they don't expect to get hurt?
  10. Why not?
  11. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    True, but that does not apply during acts of war or conflict.

    I may have misremembered the facts,

    but a soldier recieved a fairly substansive compo payment for a range
    incident in the beat up to GWII, whilst in theatre.

    And as for my bold I totally agree with you. You should have heard a certain well decorated ex Headley Court patient on that subject!!!!!
  12. I'm probably being picky, but nothing happens when a misfire occurs.
  13. To be frank, some people on this site do think like this. There was a thread going a while ago where someone was totally affronted by the fact that Liam Gallacher had made a comment along the lines of 'if you don't want to get shot, don't join the Army'. The poster was incensed. Gallacher was right. Getting shot at in the Army is an occupational hazard.
  14. If you consider the person was on about 25k and had another 35 years of employment in them then it’s not much. 25x35=875,000. So they got half of there projected income following an attack at work which should not have happened. Looks a bit hard dun by to me.

    And I agree if you joined the army and didn’t think you’d get shot at then you didn’t read the small print or have seen any news for the last 40 years.

  15. More likely incensed that twonks like him, Liam, can say that because of what we have done for freedom of speech. Plus, as said, he's a twonk.