Justice for the Wounded: Better payouts for injured troops

#1
An interesting development, but does anyone know if it only covers compensation GIP's paid out under the AFCS or whether it also applies to the SIP's paid out under the older WPS...? Which considering that troops were deployed to both Telic and Herrick prior to 2005 I would like to think that it does.

Justice for the Wounded: Better payouts for injured troops

Wounded troops are to be given increased compensation payments following an outcry over attempts by the Ministry of Defence to limit pay-outs.

Seriously injured servicemen will collect 30 per cent more money in an overhaul to be announced by Bob Ainsworth, Secretary of State for Defence.

The amount of money for those troops suffering from mental illness will also increase.

The changes will be retrospective so that they apply to hundreds of soldiers who have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Ainsworth asked Admiral Lord Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff, to carry out a review of compensation after heavy criticism of the current scheme that included The Daily Telegraph’s Justice for the Wounded Campaign. Full Article
 
#3
Too little, far too f^cking late.
 
#4
So you'd rather no change for the wounded?

Knee jerk, gents.
 
#5
Bravo_Bravo said:
So you'd rather no change for the wounded?

Knee jerk, gents.
Of course we want better care for the wounded, but you do not give credit to those whose contempt and disregard for the forces has led to many avoidable wounds and deaths.

They are only doing this because they want party political advantage, not because they care, once the election is out of the way, normal service will resume.
 
#6
Heard it all before just sums it up, we have heard it all before, at every general election in the last thirty years, so I wont hold my breath
 
#7
InVinoVeritas said:
They are only doing this because they want party political advantage, not because they care, once the election is out of the way, normal service will resume.
This review has been happening for months, it's not something Ainsworth has cooked up for a quick soundbite. The AFCS is changing for the better but you're not happy with that?
 
#8
spaz said:
InVinoVeritas said:
They are only doing this because they want party political advantage, not because they care, once the election is out of the way, normal service will resume.
This review has been happening for months, it's not something Ainsworth has cooked up for a quick soundbite. The AFCS is changing for the better but you're not happy with that?
No I'm not happy with it, so the review was started a few months ago, after 13 years in power and how many underfunded wars? How many dead, how many wounded? How many would have lived who are now dead had cyclops not slashed the helicopter budget?

Remember all the legal battles by people like Ben Parkinson?

Forgive my cynicism that they choose to do the right thing now, after battling against it for so long.
 
#9
InVinoVeritas said:
spaz said:
InVinoVeritas said:
They are only doing this because they want party political advantage, not because they care, once the election is out of the way, normal service will resume.
This review has been happening for months, it's not something Ainsworth has cooked up for a quick soundbite. The AFCS is changing for the better but you're not happy with that?
No I'm not happy with it, so the review was started a few months ago, after 13 years in power and how many underfunded wars? How many dead, how many wounded? How many would have lived who are now dead had cyclops not slashed the helicopter budget?

Remember all the legal battles by people like Ben Parkinson?

Forgive my cynicism that they choose to do the right thing now, after battling against it for so long.
The AFCS only replaced the War Pension in 2005 so that's hardly 13 years doing nothing is it? The review will also be retrospective so will apply to all payouts of AFCS.

The AFCS is compensation for injuries only, so anybody wanting to sue the MOD for injuries caused by negligence can do and their payout (on winning) would not be capped by the AFCS tariff.

I'm sure you won't let the facts get in the way of your frustrated ranting though.
 
#10
spaz said:
InVinoVeritas said:
spaz said:
InVinoVeritas said:
They are only doing this because they want party political advantage, not because they care, once the election is out of the way, normal service will resume.
This review has been happening for months, it's not something Ainsworth has cooked up for a quick soundbite. The AFCS is changing for the better but you're not happy with that?
No I'm not happy with it, so the review was started a few months ago, after 13 years in power and how many underfunded wars? How many dead, how many wounded? How many would have lived who are now dead had cyclops not slashed the helicopter budget?

Remember all the legal battles by people like Ben Parkinson?

Forgive my cynicism that they choose to do the right thing now, after battling against it for so long.
The AFCS only replaced the War Pension in 2005 so that's hardly 13 years doing nothing is it? The review will also be retrospective so will apply to all payouts of AFCS.

The AFCS is compensation for injuries only, so anybody wanting to sue the MOD for injuries caused by negligence can do and their payout (on winning) would not be capped by the AFCS tariff.

I'm sure you won't let the facts get in the way of your frustrated ranting though.
No amount of cash and crocodile tears can wash the blood from their hands.

I'm sure you won't let the truth get in the way of party propoganda.
 
#11
Save your rantings please. Regardless of when it has been announced, regardless of how long it's taken and regardless of all the personal battles along the way, the thing people should be happy with is that finally they've all been heard.

Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?

If the answer is no and it only covers awards made under the AFCS, then it is merely an attempt to play up to the electorate and as such, an attempt to win votes. In comparison to payouts made under the newer AFCS, those payments made under the older War Pension Scheme were mere peanuts.
 
#12
The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme was, according to the MoD, always going to be reviewed at the five year point i.e. in 2010 but the review was brought forward last year after criticism (including by BAFF) of the Ministry's decision to appeal against compensation awards to two injured soldiers. Previous criticism (including by BAFF) of lump sum awards to the most seriously injured such as LBDR Ben Parkinson had succeeded in bringing about an increase to those awards, and the increase was made retrospective. For all its faults, the AFCS is still generally regarded as a significant improvement for the most seriously wounded compared to what was in place before 2005.
 
#13
InVinoVeritas said:
No amount of cash and crocodile tears can wash the blood from their hands.

I'm sure you won't let the truth get in the way of party propoganda.
How long do you think you can last before you get yourself so worked up that you have a great big rascist rant and get yourself banned again?

The_cad
The_coming_man

and the others.

heard_it_all_before said:
Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?
No it will not cover the War pensions awards.
 
#14
spaz said:
heard_it_all_before said:
Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?
No it will not cover the War pensions awards.
So someone that lost limbs or suffered severe injuries prior to 2005 remains on pitiful payment...!

Vote buying, springs to mind.
 
#15
heard_it_all_before said:
spaz said:
heard_it_all_before said:
Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?
No it will not cover the War pensions awards.
So someone that lost limbs or suffered severe injuries prior to 2005 remains on pitiful payment...!

Vote buying, springs to mind.
I know what you're saying but where do you draw the line?
 
#16
spaz said:
InVinoVeritas said:
No amount of cash and crocodile tears can wash the blood from their hands.

I'm sure you won't let the truth get in the way of party propoganda.
How long do you think you can last before you get yourself so worked up that you have a great big rascist rant and get yourself banned again?

The_cad
The_coming_man

and the others.

heard_it_all_before said:
Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?
No it will not cover the War pensions awards.
Oh I'll give it about a week oddly enough..... you mispelled racist btw.

I take it this will not compensate the nuclear test veterans who are being allowed to die forgotten?

Not many votes down that route I guess.

Hypocrites.
 
#17
How the hell can it not be retrospective in terms of War Pension Payments?

The changes will be retrospective so that they apply to hundreds of soldiers who have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.


AFCS was up and running from April 2005.... Funny, but I seem to remember Afghan and Iraq deployments long before then.....

Its a good thing, but they need to think very carefully about where they draw the line in the sand (excuse the pun) Otherwise they will spend a lifetime in the courts again
 
#18
spaz said:
heard_it_all_before said:
spaz said:
heard_it_all_before said:
Nevertheless, it states that the policy is retrospective, but nearly all the recent cases have been dealt with under the new AFCS, so, the questions is: is there a limit to how far back that retrospective status go and will it cover the War Pensions awarded Pre AFCS..?
No it will not cover the War pensions awards.
So someone that lost limbs or suffered severe injuries prior to 2005 remains on pitiful payment...!

Vote buying, springs to mind.
I know what you're saying but where do you draw the line?
Well, that would be quite easy. The onset of Op's Telic and Herrick would be the logical point for retrospective increases to go back to. To make it post 2005 only, would in effect be creating a two tier class of limbless & injured veterans. One group is literally being handicapped by virtue of their own bad luck that they were injured before the new AFCS came into force.

Picture the scene. You were seriously injured on 30 April 2005 and were given a paltry WPS payment; whereas, the person on rehab with you was injured on 5 May 2005 and stands to receive almost ten times the amount, all because of a difference in a few days. Same theatre op Operations, same/similar injury but separated by a handful of days..
 
#19
Azrael2006 said:
How the hell can it not be retrospective in terms of War Pension Payments?

The changes will be retrospective so that they apply to hundreds of soldiers who have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.


AFCS was up and running from April 2005.... Funny, but I seem to remember Afghan and Iraq deployments long before then.....

Its a good thing, but they need to think very carefully about where they draw the line in the sand (excuse the pun) Otherwise they will spend a lifetime in the courts again


It's all spin mate, Peter will be robbed to pay Paul somewhere along the line.
 
#20
InVinoVeritas said:
Oh I'll give it about a week oddly enough..... you mispelled racist btw.

I take it this will not compensate the nuclear test veterans who are being allowed to die forgotten?

Not many votes down that route I guess.

Hypocrites.
Cheers for spotting the spelling error, could you red pen the rest of my posts. It might you keep you out of mischief for a while and have a soothing effect on your blood pressure.

If you know any nuclear test veterans who have been injured due to service since the start of AFCS in 2005, you should point them in the direction of the SPVA.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top