MoD to double compensation

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
The Ministry of Defence is to double the level of compensation offered to the UK's most gravely wounded troops.

The maximum payment will increase to £570,000, on top of a guaranteed income payment for life.

There will also be a smaller rise in the awards to service personnel who have sustained less serious injuries.

The measures are part of a wider package aimed at ensuring personnel and their families are better looked after in areas such as education and housing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/d/int/news/top/1/-/news/1/hi/uk/7510490.stm

About time too
 
#2
I agree - just saw it on the beeb - not before time.

It's a modern sign of the times I suppose, but (prospective) squaddies today aren't going to sign up knowing they'll go on tour and be left on the scrapheap if they get incapacitated in serving.

Gone are the days (hopefully) of "spare a penny/buy a box matches from an auld soldier Sir??"
 
#3
Personally, I think they should put a nought on the end and make it £2.8m.

More important questions: "is it retrospective - and if so, how far back?"

If you read between the lines, this is the surest sign yet of a scaledown in operations. Politicians don't indulge in such 'largesse' unless they have a hidden motive.

Less people in theatre = less to pay out.

Political expediency and timing of elections are also factors. Watch them very closely. Also, I don't see any detail on the subject of 'the smaller increase for less seriously injured soldiers'. The goalposts could also be moved whereby definitions of 'seriously' and 'not seriously' are modified. Couple this with troop withdrawals over time and hey presto, the books could be balanced and Gordon Brown swept back into power on the crest of a wave of deluded and duped voters.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
frenchperson said:
Personally, I think they should put a nought on the end and make it £2.8m.
Indeed!
 
#5
Also like the 6 years and then funded to university (though it would be good to see what the detail behind this promise is)
 
#6
Sounds good but am I being a nasty suspicious person when I think that serving personnel should read the small print VERY VERY carefully to find the catch/multiple get-out clauses that the MoD has probably written into this "promise"? :?
 
#7
frenchperson said:
Personally, I think they should put a nought on the end and make it £2.8m.

More important questions: "is it retrospective - and if so, how far back?"

If you read between the lines, this is the surest sign yet of a scaledown in operations. Politicians don't indulge in such 'largesse' unless they have a hidden motive.

Less people in theatre = less to pay out.

Political expediency and timing of elections are also factors. Watch them very closely. Also, I don't see any detail on the subject of 'the smaller increase for less seriously injured soldiers'. The goalposts could also be moved whereby definitions of 'seriously' and 'not seriously' are modified. Couple this with troop withdrawals over time and hey presto, the books could be balanced and Gordon Brown swept back into power on the crest of a wave of deluded and duped voters.
Once again FP I scarily find myself in complete agreement with you!
 
#8
Will there be a LEVEL Playing Field when individuals make said claims, or like many others will they have to take court action, to get what they should as a right be entilted to?

More SPIN, I hope I'm wrong!
 
#9
This is about as specific as the military are gonna see I reckon, it involves figures and covers a range of issues. If the T+C's aren't insanely complex this is a good thing

Much more helpful than a veterans day

hopefully it wont disappear in an avalanche of bureaucracy
 
#10
CharlieBubbles said:
Will there be a LEVEL Playing Field when individuals make said claims, or like many others will they have to take court action, to get what they should as a right be entilted to?

More SPIN, I hope I'm wrong!
We await the detail but the reported increases would be within the existing Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, which operates on a no-fault basis and should not normally involve any need for court action, although claimants may well be legally represented.
 
#11
rickshaw-major said:
frenchperson said:
Personally, I think they should put a nought on the end and make it £2.8m.

More important questions: "is it retrospective - and if so, how far back?"

If you read between the lines, this is the surest sign yet of a scaledown in operations. Politicians don't indulge in such 'largesse' unless they have a hidden motive.

Less people in theatre = less to pay out.

Political expediency and timing of elections are also factors. Watch them very closely. Also, I don't see any detail on the subject of 'the smaller increase for less seriously injured soldiers'. The goalposts could also be moved whereby definitions of 'seriously' and 'not seriously' are modified. Couple this with troop withdrawals over time and hey presto, the books could be balanced and Gordon Brown swept back into power on the crest of a wave of deluded and duped voters.
Once again FP I scarily find myself in complete agreement with you!


Don't be scared though bud.

Despite some not very nice opinions of me in the arrse WIKI (updated by me this morning), I'm not just a troll in a pigeon hole marked 'lefties - beware'.

I do have some healthy and constructive outlooks on the world, such as Gordon Brown should be suspended naked over a vat of boiling oil and starving rats should be let loose over his writhing body.
 
#12
Agree with Hackle - and knowing someone who has been working closely on this issue, all I can say is that there is a very genuine intent to make it work as painlessly as possible.
 
#13
OllieReeder said:
Agree with Hackle - and knowing someone who has been working closely on this issue, all I can say is that there is a very genuine intent to make it work as painlessly as possible.
Is that NOW, or has that always been the case?

I know many who would disagree!
 
#14
About 'kin time. One question though, will it be tax exempt?

I have to ask because knowing this governments record, they are just as likely to give with one hand and take with the other in order to keep the knife wielding chav population on the go.

Or am I being overly cynical?
 
#15
Tankiebootneckdad said:
About 'kin time. One question though, will it be tax exempt?

I have to ask because knowing this governments record, they are just as likely to give with one hand and take with the other in order to keep the knife wielding chav population on the go.

Or am I being overly cynical?
Lump sums and Guaranteed Income Payments to service/ex-service personnel are not taxed. Payments to dependants may be taxable depending on individual circumstances.
 
#16
CharlieBubbles said:
OllieReeder said:
Agree with Hackle - and knowing someone who has been working closely on this issue, all I can say is that there is a very genuine intent to make it work as painlessly as possible.
Is that NOW, or has that always been the case?

I know many who would disagree!
Fair enough. My mate is relatively new to this - and of course to some extent there has been a bit of special teaming to create the Command Paper. And what any half-sensible policy wonk always has to remember is: do not ever underestimate the ability of a large organisation such as the MOD or single Services to take something that was really, truly meant to have been a decent, sensible, fair policy and turn it into something worthy of Kafka. All it takes, sadly, is one idiot somewhere to send out an ill-considered or thoughtlessly worded letter, or another idiot to interprete "the rules" in a way that the man who wrote "the rules" did not actually intend, and a huge amount of needless pain and upset can be caused, and a well-meant policy discredited.
 
#17
Ahem, Out of what / whose budget is the compensation / funds coming from? in other words at who's or what expense or am I naive enough to believe that the MOD will be allocated funds above their existing budget. ( In other words, is Peter going to be robbed by Paul? )

Either way, I'm glad something is being done.
 
#18
hackle said:
Lump sums and Guaranteed Income Payments to service/ex-service personnel are not taxed. Payments to dependants may be taxable depending on individual circumstances.
REALLY?

They took one quarter of the payment off me, telling me it was TAX!

That WAS in 1997, just before we walked up the steps to the court!

So is there a level playing field, or have the rules changed AGAIN?
 
#19
I think that would be very naive indeed, Adam. :roll:

As I understand it, one of the important bits is that other Government Depts that pay benefits - DWP, HMRC I presume - will not be allowed to include the compensation packages when applying any means testing. So no "you can't get this benefit because the MOD have just given you a big wodge of money to say sorry for having your arm blown off."
 

Similar threads

Top