Increase of payments under Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by defenceheadquarters, Feb 10, 2010.

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. From Sky News

    I've left my comment on their web site. I suppose now it's down to the Journalists on here to pick up on Labours Forgotten Army.

    Which in this case is all those that have suffered the same fate as their comrades that have been awarded payments of compensation under the AFCS whereas, all those awarded much lower payments under the older War Pension Scheme prior to it's (AFCS) implementation have just been tossed onto the scrap heap with crappy lower lump sum and monthly payments.

    As I said before, Same Conflicts, Same Theatres of Operations and Same Injuries, Illneses and Diseases but because of a change in pension payments, all those who suffered before April 2005 have only receieved just a Kick-in-the-Bolllocks from this outgoing government that sent them there in the first place.
  2. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    Saw Simon Weston on Sky this morning making the point that whilst this is good news those on the older War Pensions get bugger all.
  3. I have noticed that there is NOTHING at all mentioned about the thousands of war pensioners of Great Britain who were awarded a War Disablement Pension BEFORE the new scheme of 2005 was implemented.
    What happens to these (the majority) of veterans. :?
  4. Good on yer Simon, at least someone has the bolllocks to tell the media about all those that have been see-off..

  5. @ h_i_a_b: Ainsworthless was questioned about this and said words to the effect that if the payments went further back "we" might have to pay vets who were serving in 1917 :evil:
    'ckin idiot :mad:

    edited to add: Simon Weston did well on Sky TV this morning, the presenter also helped to rub the point in by asking him again how War pensioners are treated.
  6. NAFF ALL I SUPPOSE :evil: :evil:
  7. Bob Jobsworth is a stupid Cnut then. I realise that a line has to be drawn somewhere, so the increases should at least go as far back as the start of both Herrick and Telic.

    Like I said, it's just not right that two people with the same wounds from the same conflicts should get such a vast difference in financial compensation solely because of a date and a change in policy. It would only be an additional two/three year period that they would need to include so as to sweep everyone up with the increases.

    I'll tell you one for sure though, They'd soon fcuking backdate it if it was for fcuking unscrupulous MP's that stood to benefit...
  8. Further to my last post on this subject.
    It looks as if we now have a two tier system now in operation regarding Disabled War Veterans of this country.
    One for Veterans pre 2005, (the majority) and one for post 2005.
    Where is the justice in that ?
    We all fought for the same side you know!
    How funking dare the Government "FORGET" about the majority group of British War Veterans. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
  9. Herrick 6 i was blown up by a uvied ,smashed 8 bones in my right leg,6 ops later plus half a dozen courses at Headley,i walk with a limp ,Never run again, put a full stop on my career and now do a desk job ..oh n have been told i'll have a walking stick in 10yrs . my comp was £14k not being greedy but i find this an insult ,bet i get another £2k .....ARMY be the best !! my arrse
  10. How much of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is taken up by claims for sports related injuries?
  11. Not criticising your question, the answer would be interesting, but as far as I am concerned AFCS is right in not attempting a distinction between operational injuries (however defined) and non-operational.
  12. elovabloke

    elovabloke LE Moderator

    Is the RBL, other service charities along with BAFF honestly happy with this? Just before an election it gives the impression that there has been a certain amount of rolling over on this one giving the Government some cheap points.

    A two tier system has now been sanctioned. Any member of the forces who sustained injuries in services should all be treated equally. I appreciated that before the high profile Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts the public in general and a fair few on here seemed to think that life was all about piss ups and sunshine. Many hundreds of service personnel suffered horrific injuries and PTSD long before the current punch ups.

    It seems to me that the Parliament, MOD, service charities and others are going for the big headlines and have readily fallen into line.
  13. I couldnt agree more about earlier conflicts, and have indeed commented about the unfairness to those injured in them, and even on Op Telic, prior to the magic date in April 2005. That does, however, perhaps make the point that the AFCS is a significant improvement on what was there before, as far as the most seriously injured are concerned.

    Although a number of questions remain, the further improvements announced today are in my opinion genuine, and are not a pre-election ploy but the outcome of a thorough review led by Lord Boyce assisted by RBL, SSAFA and others.

    It is always a matter of judgement as to when you move from being highly critical, as BAFF certainly has in respect of aspects of the AFCS, to giving credit for genuine progress, irrespective of which party is in power at the time. MPs of all parties present at the announcement today were generally welcoming in principle.
  14. Cynical me. I thought the timing of this announcement and the limited good it actually provides might just be another sound byte for the celestial ones who seek re-election :roll: