I am completely fed up with the second-rate spin put out by the MoD to avoid the fact that civil servants receiving substantial payouts are in fact getting a better deal than wounded soldiers. The back-strain case has been covered elsewhere, but there is a recurrent theme. Quote from the MoD printed in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/17/nsoldier117.xml This implies that the poor civil servant receives no such tax-free index-linked annual income for life. Not true. In this case, the back-strain person is probably not compelled to retire through ill-health attributable to the injury. However, if he did end up unable to work, then a guaranteed minimum income would be provided, up to 85% of the pension depending on the degree of incapacity. http://www.pcs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=897419 Now, we all know why , by comparison, Armed Forces personnel receive such a pittance in terms of compensation. It is because the MoD can impose the terms and conditions of service without consultation. It is also probably too expensive for the threadbare defence budget to sustain an acceptable level of compensation, given the fact that the Armed Forces are routinely in harm's way in a manner that the Civil Service is not, particularly over the last few years. Let's challenge the spin. This is not a fair deal and the spin about a "guaranteed income" that, by implication, is not part of the deal that others get is simply misleading.