Could you do this?

#1
Watched the news today and there were the three lads that are claiming compensation for being beaten up by the Soldiers in the video.

They admit to having thrown stones, but not grenades as far as I know, and seem keen to get some cash out of there experience. Surprise.

What I wondered is this.

If you were soldier inside the base or out, could you sue for compensation from them because they threw stones at you? After all they have admitted that they threw the stones on international tele.

Could this be done?
 
#2
I think the sniper on top of the building should of been allowed target practice. This never would of happened in other wars it seems compensation culture has invaded Iraq and thanks to the evil leftie peacniks in our country which are using tax payers money to find out about these supposed 'crimes' I remember the last case fell apart from lack of evidence and cost over £20,000 in tax payers money.
 
#3
Oh the irony. These guys come forward to claim their compensation after throwing stones at the Brits and (if it was indeed them) getting a good beating. Meanwhile in Pakistan today, two Pakistani rioters were shot dead by Pakistani police for throwing stones during a religious riot agains the Danish and their 'horrible' cartoons.

But that's okay, because muslim police are allowed to shoot muslim rioters dead but British soldiers can't catch muslim rioters and give them a shoeing.

Sod it, why not leave them to it. They deserve themselves and we'll save the lives of our lads, the heartache of getting it wrong sometimes and the government save a fortune... and that's only in compensation to scrotes who probably weren't even there.
 
#4
The day a soldier can sue for having stones thrown at him or her whilst on duty will be a sorry one. Soldiers could start suing for all sorts of things, like being shot. It is a risk that goes with the job. Nobody can say they weren't aware of the dangers involved when they signed up. The irony of the situation of course is that the 'compensation culture' mentioned by dan_man is a very western thing. Don't these people hate western cultures?

I'm not saying that beating these people up was the right thing to do but a soldier cannot be expected to take this kind of thing on the chin.
 
#5
Meatballsnpasta, I sort of thought about opening this up as a new front in warfare. The right of soldiers to sue, as far as I am aware, is not removed by being soldier.
 
#6
Surely if soldiers start to sue left right and centre, the army will introduce a waver recruits will have to sign to say they won't sue if they get hurt by a low flying rock or if they take a round. I'm sure soldiers do have the right to sue, I'm not a lawyer I don't know, but it's a dangerous job. Are we going to see warning signs put up in careers offices saying 'Caution: Bullets Hurt' just like the 'contents hot' warnings on McDonald's coffee?
 
#7
I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, meatballsnpasta.

I don't mean the soldiers sue the Army for the stone throwing.

I mean the soldiers sue the Iraqis, who have admitted throwing stones on international television, who are trying to sue the soldiers for slapping them about. If they threw the stones, surely they could be in someway prosecuted or classed as responsible for mental anguish (or something similar) to the soldiers in the base.

Thus, the soldiers sue, win, get the Iraqis money. Sends a lesson out to other money grabbers trying to cash in on what was criminal activity on their part.
 
#8
Any other nations forces would have just shot the little buggas in the first place, they are very lucky to get away with a going over with tickle sticks and attitude adjusters.

If everyone is so concerned with soldiers non-lethal force to teach the shiites a lesson why don't we bring HM Forces home and send out the Probation Service to Iraq instead??? They could run round handing out ASBO's, tag offenders or maybe even send the little darlings on a 'correctional holiday' to do some hill walking, mountain biking, etc, etc....

To top it all off, that kunt with the stupid grin will probably end up suing the soldiers involved, even though her kunt of a husband sent us there.

Shiit state of affairs!

Rant complete!

CC_TA
 
#10
Erm right, I'm by no means a legal expert but we had to do something like this for uni work :D Basically, the US has something called the 'firemans' rule which is basically that a fireman or similar cant claim for injuries against someone if it was in the normal course of the job. (much simplified version). However, UK doesnt have this rule. I'll look it up, and find some references, I'm pretty sure I could give you a definitive answer.
 
#11
surprised nobody has said much about the tw*t who sold 2 year old footage to the press, stitched his mates, damaged the effort in iraq, trashed the Army's image once again, and potentially endangered more lives - for a bit of cash.
 

Percy_Pigeon

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#12
Difficult to condemn or condone this matter as most of us were not there.

I can’t see much scope in suing the Iraqis, has what would you get, if you won.

It does highlight the tight rope we tread, why the happy slapping type videos, surly the 30 pieces of NOTW silver aren’t worth the retribution.

Interesting thread

Alles für die Katz.
 
#13
CRmeansCeilingReached wrote:

surprised nobody has said much about the tw*t who sold 2 year old footage to the press, stitched his mates, damaged the effort in iraq, trashed the Army's image once again, and potentially endangered more lives - for a bit of cash.
( quote)

a very good point indeed, and i concur with the koont statement!
 
#14
northern_warrior said:
CRmeansCeilingReached wrote:

surprised nobody has said much about the tw*t who sold 2 year old footage to the press, stitched his mates, damaged the effort in iraq, trashed the Army's image once again, and potentially endangered more lives - for a bit of cash.

cünt. ( quote)

a very good point indeed, and i concur with the koont statement!
I agree 100% with you except for one small point, said cretin who sold the footage either fits into one of two slots in my book. He is either a money grabber who has a real beef with the Army and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving, or he is a money grabber who has no mates and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving!
 
#15
Baldrick66 said:
northern_warrior said:
CRmeansCeilingReached wrote:

surprised nobody has said much about the tw*t who sold 2 year old footage to the press, stitched his mates, damaged the effort in iraq, trashed the Army's image once again, and potentially endangered more lives - for a bit of cash.
( quote)

a very good point indeed, and i concur with the koont statement!
I agree 100% with you except for one small point, said cretin who sold the footage either fits into one of two slots in my book. He is either a money grabber who has a real beef with the Army and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving, or he is a money grabber who has no mates and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving!

I agree with this also............ tomorrow i must be not so agreeable. 8)
 
#16
chocolate_frog said:
I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, meatballsnpasta.

I don't mean the soldiers sue the Army for the stone throwing.

I mean the soldiers sue the Iraqis, who have admitted throwing stones on international television, who are trying to sue the soldiers for slapping them about. If they threw the stones, surely they could be in someway prosecuted or classed as responsible for mental anguish (or something similar) to the soldiers in the base.

Thus, the soldiers sue, win, get the Iraqis money. Sends a lesson out to other money grabbers trying to cash in on what was criminal activity on their part.
I did understand what you were trying to say but perhaps my wording wasn't quite right SCoy's post perhaps puts my point across a little clearer.
SCoy said:
Erm right, I'm by no means a legal expert but we had to do something like this for uni work :D Basically, the US has something called the 'firemans' rule which is basically that a fireman or similar cant claim for injuries against someone if it was in the normal course of the job. (much simplified version). However, UK doesnt have this rule. I'll look it up, and find some references, I'm pretty sure I could give you a definitive answer.
Although I do believe the little scrotes shouldn't be able to claim against our guys. Just like the case of the Norfolk farmer who shot a guy with a shotgun because said guy was trying to rob his farm. The farmer ended up being sent down for longer than the guy he shot. Have forgotten the exact details but it ilistrates my point.
 
#17
meatballsnpasta said:
The day a soldier can sue for having stones thrown at him or her whilst on duty will be a sorry one. Soldiers could start suing for all sorts of things, .
I know of at least one case in the last 18 months of a British soldier suing his CO for having injured himself with a pick-axe, because he hadn't BEEN TRAINED IN ITS USE. 8O

Too late pal, the lunatics are already running the asylum.

Edited to clarify.
 
#18
northern_warrior said:
Baldrick66 said:
northern_warrior said:
CRmeansCeilingReached wrote:

surprised nobody has said much about the tw*t who sold 2 year old footage to the press, stitched his mates, damaged the effort in iraq, trashed the Army's image once again, and potentially endangered more lives - for a bit of cash.
( quote)

a very good point indeed, and i concur with the koont statement!
I agree 100% with you except for one small point, said cretin who sold the footage either fits into one of two slots in my book. He is either a money grabber who has a real beef with the Army and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving, or he is a money grabber who has no mates and dosen't give a toss about the guys still serving!

I agree with this also............ tomorrow i must be not so agreeable. 8)
I think I read or heard that this video has been circulating in BAOR for the better part of a year. The person who offered it to the NOTW might have had nothing to do with the incident, the unit involved, or possibly the Army at all...

Some people might remember that one of the brain donors in the Camp Breadbasket case got caught because he took the film of him and his oppos abusing Iraqi prisoners to be developed at Boots. Enough said?
 
#19
Themanwho said:
meatballsnpasta said:
The day a soldier can sue for having stones thrown at him or her whilst on duty will be a sorry one. Soldiers could start suing for all sorts of things, .
I know of at least one case in the last 18 months of a British soldier suing his CO for having injured himself with a pick-axe, because he hadn't BEEN TRAINED IN ITS USE. 8O

Too late pal, the lunatics are already running the asylum.

Edited to clarify.
Most people are quick to condemn compensation culture. At least until they see that they can cash in...
 
#20
Plant-Pilot Eloquently said:
Oh the irony. These guys come forward to claim their compensation after throwing stones at the Brits and (if it was indeed them) getting a good beating. Meanwhile in Pakistan today, two Pakistani rioters were shot dead by Pakistani police for throwing stones during a religious riot agains the Danish and their 'horrible' cartoons.

But that's okay, because muslim police are allowed to shoot muslim rioters dead but British soldiers can't catch muslim rioters and give them a shoeing.

Sod it, why not leave them to it. They deserve themselves and we'll save the lives of our lads, the heartache of getting it wrong sometimes and the government save a fortune... and that's only in compensation to scrotes who probably weren't even there.
Gets my vote. Where do we sign?

meatballsnpasta said:
The day a soldier can sue for having stones thrown at him or her whilst on duty will be a sorry one. Soldiers could start suing for all sorts of things, like being shot. It is a risk that goes with the job. Nobody can say they weren't aware of the dangers involved when they signed up. The irony of the situation of course is that the 'compensation culture' mentioned by dan_man is a very western thing. Don't these people hate western cultures?
If the fetid creatures wish to pursue their claims through UK courts (as I suspect they will) then surely the soldiers who were victims of their violence could a) either pursue a civil action against them or b) make a claim themselves at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Perhaps someone who knows could advise.
 

Latest Threads

Top