Wounded soldiers to be awarded millions

#1
An Article from the Sunday Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/m...=P13&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=70835

Even assuming that the report seeks to reflect reality, then those who seek to rely on the advice of 'Government lawyers' may as well not bother.

Government lawyers are employed by the government against whom those affected seek redress.

Imagine an accused person who seeks legal advice from the prosecution. Imagine a litigant seeking to sue an employer who seeks legal advice from the lawyer representing the employer!

I well remember processing criminal injuries compensation for soldiers injured on OP BANNER during the late 1980s. All were advised by government lawyers (processed through ALS) and all, regardless of their injuries, were all offered the same amount!

They were glad of the money at the time, but, twenty years on when the superficial injury of limbs led to mobility problems of men now in their fifties and some in their sixties, their 'easy money' and 'easy settlement' left them unable to pursue a further claim!

Don't be seduced by Government Lawyers. Remember who employs them and who pays their wages!

Seek independent legal advice!

If you do not then you deserve everything you get!

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#2
Some of you will remember this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article266736.ece

which was a complete and utter disgrace.

The revised scheme is still capable of producing similar anomolies especially in terms of the burdern of proof, abatements and timescale for lodging claims.

Behind it all is the Treasury and the MoD seeking to make what is now on offer "cost neutral" by offsetting any payouts against other benefits that are or were available.

As ever, if it seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Seek advice from support organisations and get your own legal advice
 
#3
Blogg said:
Some of you will remember this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article266736.ece

which was a complete and utter disgrace.

The revised scheme is still capable of producing similar anomolies especially in terms of the burdern of proof, abatements and timescale for lodging claims.

Behind it all is the Treasury and the MoD seeking to make what is now on offer "cost neutral" by offsetting any payouts against other benefits that are or were available.

As ever, if it seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Seek advice from support organisations and get your own legal advice
Did Sergeant Walker receive compensation from the UN, did he receive the same compensation as those coming back from Iraq or AFG, did he get no compensation ant all?? What is (or was) the compensation rate from the UN???
 
#4
I know only what is in the public domain. But the fact that MoD was prepared to go to such lengths speaks volumes about the mindset that prevailed and still does, no matter how it is spun.

Service Personnel: Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:


What further consideration they are giving to the issue of compensation for ex-servicemen and women, in particular to those who fall foul of the rules of the criminal injuries compensation (overseas) scheme, as exemplified by the case of Sergeant Trevor Walker, Royal Engineers, who lost a leg while serving on peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and has been denied compensation for this injury under current rules.[HL3358]


Lord Bach: There are no plans to amend the criminal injuries compensation (overseas) (CIC(O)) scheme rules. This scheme exists to provide compensation for sevice personnel injured as a result of a criminal act while serving overseas. The CIC(O)'s provisions mirror those of the criminal injuries compensation schemes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and thus ensure that service personnel serving abroad are placed in the same position as those serving in the United Kingdom.

Sergeant Trevor Walker's injuries were the result of military activity by warring factions in Bosnia. Since this was not a "criminal act" within the terms of the CIC(O) scheme, he was not eligible for compensation under the scheme. This judgment has been upheld by the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In circumstances such as Sergeant Walker's, compensation would normally be through the payment of benefits for attributable injury under the war pension scheme (WPS) and the armed forces pension scheme (AFPS) on medical discharge. Sergeant Walker currently remains in service. He will be entitled to receive a war pension on retirement. He will also receive compensation under the AFPS if he is subsequently medically discharged as a result of his injury.

The Ministry of Defence has been conducting a review of compensation arrangements for service personnel and the proposals for a new compensation scheme (to replace the WPS and attributable benefits


House of Lords Hansard
27 Mar 2002
 
#5
Blogg said:
I know only what is in the public domain. But the fact that MoD was prepared to go to such lengths speaks volumes about the mindset that prevailed and still does, no matter how it is spun.

Service Personnel: Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:


What further consideration they are giving to the issue of compensation for ex-servicemen and women, in particular to those who fall foul of the rules of the criminal injuries compensation (overseas) scheme, as exemplified by the case of Sergeant Trevor Walker, Royal Engineers, who lost a leg while serving on peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and has been denied compensation for this injury under current rules.[HL3358]


Lord Bach: There are no plans to amend the criminal injuries compensation (overseas) (CIC(O)) scheme rules. This scheme exists to provide compensation for sevice personnel injured as a result of a criminal act while serving overseas. The CIC(O)'s provisions mirror those of the criminal injuries compensation schemes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and thus ensure that service personnel serving abroad are placed in the same position as those serving in the United Kingdom.

Sergeant Trevor Walker's injuries were the result of military activity by warring factions in Bosnia. Since this was not a "criminal act" within the terms of the CIC(O) scheme, he was not eligible for compensation under the scheme. This judgment has been upheld by the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In circumstances such as Sergeant Walker's, compensation would normally be through the payment of benefits for attributable injury under the war pension scheme (WPS) and the armed forces pension scheme (AFPS) on medical discharge. Sergeant Walker currently remains in service. He will be entitled to receive a war pension on retirement. He will also receive compensation under the AFPS if he is subsequently medically discharged as a result of his injury.

The Ministry of Defence has been conducting a review of compensation arrangements for service personnel and the proposals for a new compensation scheme (to replace the WPS and attributable benefits


House of Lords Hansard
27 Mar 2002

So, rather than a seeker of the truth You are an agent prvocateur??
 
#6
When you consider the MOD paid some old tart of an officer a large sum of money in compensation for being sacked for getting pregnant ....despite the fact it was in the terms of her contract and she was well aware of the rule and obviously had failed to take reasonable precautions ......This is really fukking outrageous .... Seems the PC brigade have more sway at the MOD ( Ministry of D'heads ) than others !! :x
 
#7
Sven said:
Did Sergeant Walker receive compensation from the UN, did he receive the same compensation as those coming back from Iraq or AFG, did he get no compensation ant all?? What is (or was) the compensation rate from the UN???
Trev got nothing from the UN.
IIRC, If the Government had paid out a sum as compensation the UN would have refunded the Government the same amount. :evil:

There was a lot of legal mumbo jumbo surrounding this and I believe Trevs legal team is still pursuing it.

Good luck Trev and D. :)
 
#8
gunfighter said:
When you consider the MOD paid some old tart of an officer a large sum of money in compensation for being sacked for getting pregnant ....despite the fact it was in the terms of her contract and she was well aware of the rule and obviously had failed to take reasonable precautions ......This is really fukking outrageous .... Seems the PC brigade have more sway at the MOD ( Ministry of D'heads ) than others !! :x

Are You talking about the military exemptions to the Criminal Injuries or Sergeant Walker. So long as the soldier concerned gets his money then I cannot see the controversy.

Of course, if Sergeant Walker DIDN'T get compensated for his wounds then I agrree, it is outrageous
 
#10
Blogg said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
So, rather than a seeker of the truth You are an agent prvocateur??
AFAIK Sgt Walker may still be serving. Work the rest out for yourself, moron
Hmmmmm

Personal insults rather than debating the subject - very grown up of You.



If Sergeant Walker is still serving then are You saying he will never be compensated for his war wound - from either the UN or our gevernment???
 
#11
Sven said:
Blogg said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
So, rather than a seeker of the truth You are an agent prvocateur??
AFAIK Sgt Walker may still be serving. Work the rest out for yourself, moron
Hmmmmm

Personal insults rather than debating the subject - very grown up of You.



If Sergeant Walker is still serving then are You saying he will never be compensated for his war wound - from either the UN or our gevernment???
Sven take a breath, stop typing for a minute read the post from myself just above yours!!

You come across as a rabid defender of Neu Arbeit! Even when their actions are indefensible you come back with examples of poor Tory efforts and outrages. Irrelevant . Two wrongs do not make a right!

I am not a political animal, I would not trust any of the politicians.

I believe Trev is still serving and has had no compensation!
 
#12
Priam said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
So, rather than a seeker of the truth You are an agent prvocateur??
AFAIK Sgt Walker may still be serving. Work the rest out for yourself, moron
Hmmmmm

Personal insults rather than debating the subject - very grown up of You.



If Sergeant Walker is still serving then are You saying he will never be compensated for his war wound - from either the UN or our gevernment???
Sven take a breath, stop typing for a minute read the post from myself just above yours!!

You come across as a rabid defender of Neu Arbeit! Even when their actions are indefensible you come back with examples of poor Tory efforts and outrages. Irrelevant . Two wrongs do not make a right!

I am not a political animal, I would not trust any of the politicians.

I believe Trev is still serving and has had no compensation!

If You know the bloke and KNOW that he hasn't received his due under the war injuries provision or UN compensation than bloody say so. If he hasn't and is not set to receive it then, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, it is disgusting. If he hasn't but will get it at the end of his time before the colours then it is still wrong and should be faught for.


As for how You perceive me, You (and many on the right wing who post here) do so on the strength of a very few issues. Yes, I applaud this government when they get it right, as Charles Kennedy suggested, I give credit where it is due. But I try not to obfuscate and in all things I try to get the FACTS right (most unlike most journalists).

But to take my posts and on the basis of them turn to personal invective demeans Yourself more than You demean me
 
#15
Sven said:
Priam said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
Sven said:
Blogg said:
So, rather than a seeker of the truth You are an agent prvocateur??
AFAIK Sgt Walker may still be serving. Work the rest out for yourself, moron
Hmmmmm

Personal insults rather than debating the subject - very grown up of You.



If Sergeant Walker is still serving then are You saying he will never be compensated for his war wound - from either the UN or our gevernment???
Sven take a breath, stop typing for a minute read the post from myself just above yours!!

You come across as a rabid defender of Neu Arbeit! Even when their actions are indefensible you come back with examples of poor Tory efforts and outrages. Irrelevant . Two wrongs do not make a right!

I am not a political animal, I would not trust any of the politicians.

I believe Trev is still serving and has had no compensation!

If You know the bloke and KNOW that he hasn't received his due under the war injuries provision or UN compensation than bloody say so
I did
I did say
I believe Trev is still serving and has had no compensation.
If he hasn't and is not set to receive it then, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, it is disgusting. If he hasn't but will get it at the end of his time before the colours then it is still wrong and should be faught for.


As for how You perceive me, You (and many on the right wing who post here) do so on the strength of a very few issues. Yes, I applaud this government when they get it right, as Charles Kennedy suggested, I give credit where it is due. But I try not to obfuscate and in all things I try to get the FACTS right (most unlike most journalists).

But to take my posts and on the basis of them turn to personal invective demeans Yourself more than You demean me
My intention was not to demean you, but to ask you to take a step back and read what you and others have written before going off on one.

Straight question for you Sven.

Do you think the present government has done enough to support the military on current operations?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated!
 
#16
Priam

1)Moron is not at term of endearment is it

2)Yes, this government could have done more for its troops, but in many cases were acting to the precedents set down by the last administration SOPs which could not be known to be faulty until they were tested in a war
 
#17
Sven said:
Priam

1)Moron is not at term of endearment is it

2)Yes, this government could have done more for its troops, but in many cases were acting to the precedents set down by the last administration SOPs which could not be known to be faulty until they were tested in a war
I did not call you a moron!

Try reading every now and then instead of just typing! :roll:

How long should it take to sort out these SOPs then? Especially if the Prime Minister stands up and promises whatever the forces need they shall have? (or words to that effect!)
 
#18
Priam said:
Sven said:
Priam

1)Moron is not at term of endearment is it

2)Yes, this government could have done more for its troops, but in many cases were acting to the precedents set down by the last administration SOPs which could not be known to be faulty until they were tested in a war
I did not call you a moron!

Try reading every now and then instead of just typing! :roll:

How long should it take to sort out these SOPs then? Especially if the Prime Minister stands up and promises whatever the forces need they shall have? (or words to that effect!)
When was Just in Time brought in - 1990?? That gave seven years for the system to have been found inadequate. When the Labour government came into power was there anything to suggest that it would fail and that it was not the norm.

In which case, which administration is at fault

As to the moron comment - You are right - I got Your post and Bloggs mixed up - I apologize
 
#19
When was Just in Time brought in - 1990?? That gave seven years for the system to have been found inadequate. When the Labour government came into power was there anything to suggest that it would fail and that it was not the norm.

In which case, which administration is at fault
Seven years to find fault when the Balkans and Op Granby were on the cards and using your words "was there anything to suggest that it would fail and that it was not the norm." For that scale of Ops I think the system coped if not then that should have been the warning for Labour.

When we move into the present day situation, still using the same system with a different set of Ops, 3 years into it with the Prime minister offering only unfilled promises.

I say the current administration is at fault.

You cannot blame everything on your predecessors when Labor have been in power for almost 10 years! You are only kidding yourself!
 
#20
Sven said:
gunfighter said:
When you consider the MOD paid some old tart of an officer a large sum of money in compensation for being sacked for getting pregnant ....despite the fact it was in the terms of her contract and she was well aware of the rule and obviously had failed to take reasonable precautions ......This is really fukking outrageous .... Seems the PC brigade have more sway at the MOD ( Ministry of D'heads ) than others !! :x

Are You talking about the military exemptions to the Criminal Injuries or Sergeant Walker. So long as the soldier concerned gets his money then I cannot see the controversy.

Of course, if Sergeant Walker DIDN'T get compensated for his wounds then I agrree, it is outrageous
The point I'm making is female officer gets pregnant and is required to honour the conditions in her contract .....i.e RESIGN .....goes to court and with very little effort and in spite of being in breach of contract she gets large pay out .
SNCO gets seriously injured in line of duty, actually honouring the terms of his contract and has to fight the world to get compensation !!!

I am NOT comparing treatment between the ranks I AM questioning the morality of such decision and how much is down to the PC lobby being appeased ..... !!!

She knew the rules & by signing on the dotted line ACCEPTED them ..... then she is allowed to bleat about it being unfair ....... at what point in her rather brief career did she come to that conclusion I wonder ...... I would suggest the minute she did the pregnancy test !!!
 

Top