Times: Toll of British wounded in Iraq war reaches 800

Front page story in today's Times:
Toll of British wounded in Iraq war reaches 800
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THEY are the forgotten victims of the Iraq conflict — the hundreds of soldiers maimed or wounded in the invasion and its 20-month aftermath.
The number of British troops flown home with serious injuries is now nearly 800, The Times can reveal. The Ministry of Defence has previously disclosed only the death toll and the Government has done nothing to draw attention to the wounded, many of whom were hurt during acts of exceptional courage. The Freedom of Information Act is now obliging it to be more open.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has made one visit, 21 months ago, to the Birmingham hospital where they are treated. Neither Tony Blair nor any other senior minister has visited the wounded in the British hospital, although they have seen injured soldiers at a military hospital in Basra.

Most of the wounded and their relatives contacted by The Times were unwilling to talk, because they had been instructed to remain silent by the MoD, because they were awaiting compensation or because they had rejoined the Forces...
Full story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1441320,00.html
It is worth reiterating that the figure of 800 represents only those with serious injuries; the overall wounded figure is over 3000.

Whilst the last person I personally would want to see at the foot of my hospital bed is TCH or Bliar, that no senior minister has bothered to visit RCDM is yet another demonstration of the contempt this government shows for HM Forces.

When was the last time a minister visited an MDHU or DGP in Germany?

I bet this won't make the front page of the Scum :evil:
A nice potential PMQ to ask why he has shown such disregard for the sacrifice of others....

Having said that, there is a thin line between political exploitation of the wounded and probing the disregard shown by the government and I would hope that this is borne in mind. I am sure the last thing that people want, either in a hospital bed or at a rehabilitation centre, is a bunch of politicians belatedly turning up for photo opportunities, I mean to pay their respects!
You never know VB, with an election coming up they may venture forth and visit the RDMC and the casualties there......that'll get them on their feet, boost for morale and all that 8O
I wondered when someone would post this topic , as I didn't want to be first .

Hansard 10/01/05

Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): How many members of the armed forces have been injured in Iraq since March 2003. [207376]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those civilians and the one member of the armed forces who have died in Iraq since the House last met. I know that the whole House would wish to pay tribute to them for their bravery and commitment in helping the people of Iraq.

Since February 2003, the United Kingdom has conducted 2,762 medical evacuations from Iraq. That includes a small number of entitled civilians and Iraqis. Of those, 790 have involved the evacuation of UK service personnel because of injuries sustained as a result of hostile actions, accidents and other incidents.

Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever hon. Members' views on the war itself, the whole House will be united in wanting to be reassured that service personnel who have been injured in Iraq are receiving the very best possible medical treatment and will be disturbed by some reports, such as those in BBC1's "Real Story", that that has not always been the case, particularly for some of those who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder?

Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on any specific case, but we have a significant number of people from the Defence Medical Services in theatre now—about 400—including surgeons, dental officers, physiotherapists and mental health staff, all of whom are dedicated to providing a high standard of clinical care, and I, and the Secretary of State and others, have visited them in Iraq.

If we had 790 injured due to hostile action and acidents etc , then what were the other 1972 medevaced for?
I may be wrong, but I suspect that Caplin has once again got it wrong. The 796 figure may refer, I suspect, to the number of patients listed VSIL, SIL or III amongst a total of almost 3000. The number injured who were treated in theatre is not included either.

I note that TCH's lickspittle answered a question which referred specifically to the treatment in UK of injured Service personnel (as shown on the tv prog) by quoting the number of DMS personnel in theatre. In other words, he didn't answer the question at all. Odd, because he must remember the programme - it was the one where he kept getting his facts wrong and ended up losing his rag with the interviewer.
Afternoon Gents and dare i say Ladies..

For those of you wondering why nothing has been said or done about the 800+ seriously injured troops there are a number of reasons, and i just wanted to highlight these to you all just in case you werent aware.

I know some soldiers who think politics is a load of rubbish, on the whole they are right. Most politicians talk, say one thing and do another.

When it comes to Defence, there are clear differences between the main parties in the UK and you must understand them if you want to understand what goes on.

Labour have been in power for 8 years, in which time they have pretty much committed the forces more than any other political party in history whilst freezing defence spending. When they came to power it was all about cuts and getting rid of as much as possible, and that still hasnt changed.
Blair knows how to talk, but doesnt put his money where his mouth is.

Traditionally, Labour are against the forces from a political and ideological stand point, they like the Liberal Democrats dont believe in the army, navy and airforce. They think them all a waste of money and effort, if only they knew...

If the Liberals get in they will scrap all future aircraft programmes and will cut the army and navy even further. If you want proof just visit their websites and look for their policies on Defence.

Labour, when they first got in power in 1997, got rid of 5 frigates without even asking what they did or if the navy needed them. They believe that we dont need an army. Just look at the way they are treating soldiers who have come back from Iraq suing them in civil courts, that was an idea dreampt up by Cherie Blair for those of you unaware. They havent even visited them in hospital, they didnt give them the proper kit and if it werent for the Iraq War the forces would have been cut even more by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

Margaret Thatcher always maintained that the Government has a "duty to provide their men with the best equipment". She was a conservative PM for those of you who dont know her. During the Falklands she bent over backwards to get the best for our guys. Unlike certain other leaders.

There is only one party that will increase defence spending and support to the forces, that party is the Conservatives. They are traditionally strong, their defence spokesman is Winston Churchill's grandson, former Army Officer and Pro Forces man. He has said he will increase defence spending when the conservatives get in after the election. Yet again check the policies for yourself:


there are also some further articles from their young political arm you might like to look at, they too give you an idea of which political party is really taking the issue seriously:



yet again, make your own mind up. Some of you may wonder what you can do to change the situation, the simple answer is make sure you vote for the party that best represents the forces. Couldnt be easier really. :?:
Thank you for the party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.


come on the Conservatives.
Labour lied to get us into this mess in Iraq and could they really give a toss about the men and women that they send out there? more to the point, does it affect their lives? how many politicians have sons, daughters etc.. who have served or are serving in Iraq?
Yes bring back Maggie but leave the rest behind as they cannot agree with their leader on any of his policies.

The reasons for Aeromed are varied. The figure includes the build up to the war; during this phases, numerous aeromed were required for pers deployed 'unfit' for duty (both regs and reserves) but mainly army. They are classed as aeromeds but required no care on route.

During the summer 03 a decision was taken that those who suffered repeated bouts of heat related illness were to be aeromed back for further tests. The last time I was involved with the figures following a PMQ - 10/03, it was already impossible to sort out DNBI and BC.

A better question to ask and this must be measurable, is how many serviceman have been medically discharged or have been permanantly downgraded following tours in Iraq?

Good post by JimmyFreedom, which I thought puts one side of the case very clearly.

No-one unfamiliar with this fine website should imagine it and our voter information campaign are somehow connected with any one political party - whatever the views may be of individual members.

Would be good to see something as eloquent from supporters of other parties.

added by self: I thought of changing the above in view of PTP's comments. However, as subsequent posts have shown, if members consider a partisan poster has written bollix then they can come back on it. I totally agree we don't want new members joining for the purpose of posting partisan propaganda.

Other sites I have recently visited for election-related information are annoyingly clogged up with masked 'party machine' intrusion, much reducing their value IMO. I got the impression that posters pro certain parties (incl Conservative) seemed more prepared to openly declare their affiliation. For me, the annoying thing on some websites was the number of 'instant comments' from probable activists who conceal their affiliation.

Counter-productive, at least for this non-partisan voter.

Totally agree PTP this is something we must guard against.
Dear Mr. Freedom


So somehow, Frontline First and the Strategic Defence review somehow escaped your notice?

Mr. Oliver Letwin offering treehuggers a chance to avoid paying tax on defence has obviously slid past you too?

The Conservative parties stunning apathy on cutting Infantry units must surely not have escaped your notice? With the notable and honourable exception of Nicholas Soames?

Perhaps you'd like to look at which MP's have started Early Day Motions regarding protestations on cuts? Why even a LABOUR MP has done more , and is quoted as being 'Forceful and direct' in a meeting with TCH.

Another LABOUR MP , the member for Walsall, is a great friend of the Forces, having gone up against his party on any number of issues.

A LibDem MP is the most vocal in tackling back door redundancy

Tell me, what are the Conservatives doing as regards Defence? What are their plans concerning the FLC projects, or KBR?

If you are in fact , a CARD CARRYING Party member, and an official activist, I will, in future require a full disclosure as to who you are, from you, as all election canvassing is accountable. This site is no different from a leaflet or poster , as far as canvassing is concerned.

Or I'll just delete everything. From anyone canvassing, without the appropriate disclosures being made.

Best regards

8O seem to remember 'Options For Change' which had to be defended to those in the field by Tom King during a visit during GW1 - nice touch as it effectively announced the halving of the RAF during a period when they were quite busy..

Also Maggie did bend over backwards during 1982 - mainly to stop Hermes going to India ! Wasn't the fact that Endurance was going to be scrapped one of the reasons that the Junta decided to invade ?

...don't think any Party can claim to be particularly pro- HM Forces . It's not PC and it's expensive
Clearly some people have strong views on this, i accept that, it is a democracy afterall.

Clearly, it has hit at the heart of the problem judging by some responses .

Yes Defence is expensive, and yes it has been in decline for many years.

You guys should decide how you want to proceed in the future?

But i personally i am pro forces, i agree that some of the conservatives have been to gutless to stand up and say what they believe, but there you go. As i said earlier, politicians are full of it.

You just have to decide the lesser of the 2 evils...


Wombleboy said:
8O seem to remember 'Options For Change' which had to be defended to those in the field by Tom King during a visit during GW1 - nice touch as it effectively announced the halving of the RAF during a period when they were quite busy..

Also Maggie did bend over backwards during 1982 - mainly to stop Hermes going to India ! Wasn't the fact that Endurance was going to be scrapped one of the reasons that the Junta decided to invade ?

...don't think any Party can claim to be particularly pro- HM Forces . It's not PC and it's expensive
Thank you wombleboy - I thought I was the only one with a long memory. The tories have a just as equally shocking record on defence as any other party - this shower included. We are living with the results of their policies now - who decided that the SA-80 had to be introduced - ah yes a Tory Government.

Options for Change still makes me very angry indeed as I was affected by it and so were a lot of my friends - whilst we were in the f***ing desert! It was by far the worst thing to happen to us after the Cold War and makes the SDR look like minor tinkering.
Tom King can kiss my arrse - as can that chinless twat Jimmy freedom bollocks from Conservative Central Office who posted here (And TCH - to add balance).
They realise that there are very little votes from joe public in defence matters - which is why it is important that all members of HM Forces register to vote and use it!
Mr Freedom

If you are a Conservative Party worker, using this forum to canvass, then once again, please declare your name, party and intent.

Masked IP addresses tend not to impress us.

Similar threads

Latest Threads