Peter Hitchens - Mail on Sunday

#1
Maybe I got him thinking about it after I bought up the point on Question Time the other week, it's in his column today that he tried to get the numbers of service personnel who have lost limbs, been blinded, deafened or paralysed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was told the MoD does not hold such information and gave various excuses. He has now applied for the information from the Freedom of Information Act.
 
#2
The MOD doesn't hod such information? Well who the feck does then?
 
#3
Assembling that data entirely free from the M.O.D. might just be a project for which ARRSE itself might be best suited.
F'uck officialdom. Why not a case of soldiers doing it for themselves?
 
#4
fcuk off, bolshy.
 
#6
jack-daniels

He was told the MoD does not hold such information and gave various excuses

Maybe they think if they dont keep these stats well then its not really happening and everythings going to be ok!
 
#7
jack-daniels said:
Maybe I got him thinking about it after I bought up the point on Question Time the other week, it's in his column today that he tried to get the numbers of service personnel who have lost limbs, been blinded, deafened or paralysed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was told the MoD does not hold such information and gave various excuses. He has now applied for the information from the Freedom of Information Act.
Really...So what happens to those hordes of persreps we have to fill in what seems like every 5 minutes.....?

Me smells a lie. Shame an MP didn't ask that question. Could have been a bit more fun watching brooone squeal and squirm. Could someone ask Mark Lancaster to ask the question perhaps...?
 
#8
I don't believe that they do not know, they have stats on everything. I have recently asked a couple of questions and had the figures provided to me. You would think that the number of soldiers that had been badly injured and their type of injury would rate high on their list of stats.
 
#9
I saw a minister questioned about this on tv. I think it was Reid, on Newsnight, but I could be wrong as it was a while ago. He refused to give a figure, saying that it was difficult to define what was meant by the term 'wounded'.

I can't remember his exact words now, but it was along the lines of 'who do you count?' - depending on whether someone was injured as a result of direct enemy action, as opposed to falling off a 4 tonner etc. Also, it depended on who did the casevacing,(our blokes, the Canadians, the Yanks and so on) which nation actually treated them back at base, and where they were evacuated to when they left the country. His basic thrust was that, conveniently, figures aren't collated because of the difficulty in collecting the data, and anyway, everyone, including the MOD, are much too busy making sure the injured party gets the very best attention along the way etc, etc, etc. Complete horse sh*t, really.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it would not surprise me if it is. What would surprise me, would be if they had taken steps to rectify the situation, given the political inconvenience of the public finding out what the true cost is. For a govt and civil service which is normally obsessed with statistics and bean counting, not knowing the number of casualties suffered by your own forces in war fighting stretches credulity somewhat.

I can't imagine that it would be very difficult to find out, if they wanted to. All they've got to do is ask the units actually involved in active operations. They know how many blokes they went with, and how many came back, and what happened in between.

Straightforward, I would have thought. Not really a job for Hercule Poirot, is it?.
 
#12
Jackey Dee has got a PM. Shhssshhhh
 
#14
rebel_with_a_cause said:
The MOD doesn't hod such information?
This is interesting because if your are medically discharged, the pension would come out of the Defence Budget.

War Pensions come out of the public purse.

Each of these departments are or should be aware of how much they are actually paying to veterans, and what for. Therefore, one of these agencies hold most of the information that you require.

However, l personally feel that it is all smoke and mirrors between the Veterans Agency, and the MOD because all Service Personal if they are medically discharged it will be under QR95/PARA 9.387 (ceasing to fulfil Army Medical Standards), this is the same for Royal Air Force & Navy.

The knock on affect of this, is that some slimy person (Defence Minister or Veteran Minister - depending which day of the week, it is with NEW LABOUR - NO SHAME), can and will, whilst keeping a straight face, in the Houses of Parliament/Press that there is NO actual breakdown of wounds and injuries that have led to these soldiers being medically discharged.

The other knock on affect is, the medically discharged person has the ONUS (well and truly) placed on him/her to notify the Veterans Agency of just what wounds/injuries lead to them being actually discharged; regardless of your medical documentation being supplied to the Veterans Agency; apparently, the literacy skills at this Agency don't have to be that GOOD!!!!!! Otherwise, they wouldn't keep asking you to supply the same information, that is inside your folder, lying on their desk, when they are requesting it.................Remember the words, ONUS is on YOU - NOT them!

lf anyone should have the STATS for the Armed Forces, that have been medically discharged for wounds/injuries, it will be the Veterans Agency -IF, and its a BIG IF, that soldier has claimed a War Pension.

Fact: Of the 53,500 Troops deployed to the Gulf War 1990/91, there are now close too, 7000 who have recieved a payment or are in receipt of a War Pension for illness/injury relating to their preparation to deploy or active service in the Gulf (SPVA - Service Personal Veterans Agency, formerly known as VA - Veterans Agency ), 2007.

lf some - one was to approach the Service Personal Veterans Agency (SPVA), and request under the 'Freedom of Information Act' (F.O.I.A) for the actual breakdown of War Pensions issued from 2003. You have to be specific in your wording of the question being asked, and how you are asking it, it is all in the wording.

That is how MPs and PMs, have always avoided actually answering YOUR question/s.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
Kitmarlowe said:
Me smells a lie. Shame an MP didn't ask that question. Could have been a bit more fun watching brooone squeal and squirm. Could someone ask Mark Lancaster to ask the question perhaps...?
[carrier wave]
 
#16
jack-daniels said:
Maybe I got him thinking about it after I bought up the point on Question Time the other week, it's in his column today that he tried to get the numbers of service personnel who have lost limbs, been blinded, deafened or paralysed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was told the MoD does not hold such information and gave various excuses. He has now applied for the information from the Freedom of Information Act.
How does this square with the Artist-Formerly-Known-As-Tone's issuance that all injured soldiers get the best possible care? How does he know if he doesn't have figures for how many are wounded? What utter bollox.

Maybe if MoD doesn't hold the information, NHS will. There's surely not that many civvies with IED injuries.
 
#17
Goatman said:
Kitmarlowe said:
Me smells a lie. Shame an MP didn't ask that question. Could have been a bit more fun watching brooone squeal and squirm. Could someone ask Mark Lancaster to ask the question perhaps...?
Er.....like this ?

" ...Headley Court in Surrey, has since 1 June 2006 (the date on which it [the Complex Rehab and Amputee Unit] became fully operational) treated a total of 42 service amputees. Of these, 14 were casualties from Op. Telic (Iraq) and six from Op. Herrick (Afghanistan). "

me smells YET AGAIN a mainstream journo burnishing an earlier story.....

This is the paper that brings us today's must have headline:

'I'm not bonkers' declares Cherie Blair


Billy Bock
His article was in direct response to a point I raised on Question Time about not enough recognition being made of the fact that when they say a soldier was injured they are reluctant to state the severity of the injury, I raised it because when I went to Headley Court to see friends wounded in Helmand I was gobsmacked at the amount of blokes in there missing limbs as I certainly hadn't read anything about it. If it raises a story that has been done before well thats fine by me as it keeps the blokes sacrifices in the public eye and not brushed under the carpet.
 
#18
Goatman

Actually I was commenting on MoD's response to Peter Hitchen. Sheer b****y incompatance on the part of MoD to say that such information was not held. Two grounds. 1) As you quite rightly pointed out MoD has already part answered that question 2) 5 seconds with any regular, ex-regular or TA who's spent any length of time in any level HQ would expose that statement as a lie.

As a result MoD have been made, once again, to look stupid and a bunch of liars to boot. A most honest answer would have been to answer what parts MoD could, by simple reference to Hansard and then pointing out the gaps.

Instead MoD has proved itself void of any honesty.

Sidebar. Have you considered sending Mr.Hitchen the said link? I'm sure he'd like to know MoD lied to him.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#19
The link I provided was to a Hansard dit in answer to an MP back in March this year. Have you got a link to Hitchens' piece?

Keeping our guys in the public eye is completely right.....trouble is when you look at the Mail On Sunday's ' Most Popular Stories' today, this is what you find:

1. William and Kate say let's spend the night together

2. 'Terror ringleader' is brilliant NHS doctor

3. Gifted young TV star forced to quit top school to join mum and lesbian lover on Greek island

4. Summer will only last one day - and bishops warn storms are God's revenge for 'moral degradation'

5. P Diddy and the Princes: the night William and Harry met rap royalty
Sadly, when you think about it, there is no need for any massive Neue Arbeit propaganda machine to scurry around hiding stories of the human cost of either Telic or Herrick....the GBP ( Bless) want to hear more about the above sort of stuff - or at least so what the American tinfoil hat brigade call 'the Mainstream Media' appear to believe.

To redress the balance a bit, and make you believe that journos aren't all slimeballs, those who can be arrsed might want to check out the local boy story here.

Sadly ' Grenadier Guard praises Selly Oak treatment - Looks forward to rejoining Regiment' just doesn't sell the same number of papers, does it ?

Billy Bock
 
#20
Mark Harper - tory MP who does veterans and personnel:

Service Personnel Injuries

Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel injured in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan have (i) lost both legs and both arms, (ii) lost both legs at or above the knee, (iii) lost both legs below the knee, (iv) lost one leg at or above the knee, (v) lost one leg below the knee, (vi) lost both arms at or above the elbow, (vii) lost both arms below the elbow, (viii) lost one arm at or above the elbow, (ix) lost one arm below the elbow, (x) received deep second degree or third degree burns to more than 70 per cent. of the body, (xi) been blinded in both eyes and (xii) been made deaf. [116661]

Mr. Ingram: Information on casualties sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan is recorded in terms of clinical severity, so as to aid medical staff in providing the appropriate levels of care at each stage of treatment and in planning for future operations. Casualties are recorded as Very Seriously Injured (VSI), Seriously Injured (SI) or Un-Listed (UL).

Information on the number of military personnel who have lost limbs due to combat, have received serious burns, or had sensory deprivation is not recorded. To find this number would require the examination of the individual medical records of each patient who has been classified as VSI or SI in Iraq and Afghanistan. These records can only be viewed for non-clinical reasons with the express consent of the individual concerned, to protect patient confidentiality.

The Ministry of Defence publishes data on battle and non-battle casualties that have resulted from our operations in Iraq from March 2003 and Afghanistan since January 2006. The best centrally available casualty statistics can be found on the Ministry of Defence website at:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/Operations Factsheets

Between March 2003 and 31 December 2005, 40 UK military and civilian personnel were categorised by the Notification of Casualty (NOTICAS) system as VSI from all causes and 70 personnel have been categorised as SI from all causes in Iraq. These figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSIs and Sis sustained as a result of combat and non-combat injuries.

Between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006,11 UK personnel were categorised as VSI and 19 asSI from all causes excluding disease. As aforementioned, these figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSI and SIs from combat and non-combat causes.

Between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006,17 UK personnel were categorised as VSI and 13as SI from all causes excluding disease. As aforementioned, these figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSI and SIs from combat and non-combat causes.

Those classified as VSI have sustained illness or injury of such severity that life or reason is imminently endangered. SI covers those who’s condition is of such severity that there is cause for immediate concern, but there is no imminent danger to life or reason.

It is likely that those who received deep second or third degree burns to 70 per cent. of the body would be included in either the VSI or SI figures, but this would depend on the severity of their injury. It is not possible to say whether all those blinded in both eyes or made deaf would be included.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads