Intel Coffee Lake 8th-gen Core processors release date rumours
This has just hit the news a sorty of a young 13 year old that was shot "ACCIDENTLY" when a soldier accidently dropped his gun,the story goes on to state that the boy then moved to the UK to fight his case which is fare enough BUT how much do our menr & women get when they are wounded or how much does there families get from the goverment/MOD when they are killed..? there is no comparison whatso ever...whilst i feel Sympathy for the boy & i belive he should be awarded something as he's susstained near on fatal injuries my argument is about the overall picture that our country's own get "Diddly Squat"...
I agree the level of compensation for service personnel should be increased but the situation here is not comparable.
The Iraqi man was an innocent person not engaged in war. Civil compensation cases in this country can award these higher figures so it is not a case of preferential treatment.
Service personnel are doing their jobs, they are paid for what they do and, here's the surprise, war is a risky business. You can get killed or injured, it's a risk all service personnel take.
I think it's time we put this "heroes" business into context.
As I posted in the other thread I am certainly grateful for the work they do an there should be suitable recognition/memorials to remember them. However this focus on service personnel simply misses the obvious facts, people die doing other jobs, even seemingly safe and undervalued jobs. Do I hear the heroes cry for them?
Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, as an example some 176 service personnel have been killed in action, or approximately 35 a year.
I am not from the farming community but looking at the deaths from accidents in that industry they are currently running at approximately 50 a year.
Maybe we have our priorities all mixed up.
I think the difference is that when we sent armed forces to a war we trumpet the fact to justify the cause. Someone (the government) makes the decision to send them to war, and as such should accept the cost of keeping maimed personnel, or the dependants of the killed in a reasonable quality of lifestyle.
Someone killed or injured in a workplace, has merely had an unfortunate day.
There is certainly disingenuous nonsense about going to war but I see no correlation between that and "heroes".
All service personnel have the choice to sign up or choose a different job. I have no argument with the idea of adequate compensation. It's the dewy eyed "heroes" word which is so ill placed and frankly frequently untrue.
Is the dewy eyed phase that all leaders since Lloyd George like to use (or other words with the same connotation) when service personnel return from a war...
If they don't intend to mean it, they shouldn't use it.
I agree, but then do we really believe all the nonsense from politicians?
"do we really believe all the nonsense from politicians?"
In reality I stopped believing several years ago. I've become a voter dropout as I won't give my vote to anyone on the basis that, they're the least worst of the choice.
For me to drop back in, something radical is going to have to happen... Not, "well it's the Tory's turn to be back in now, isn't it?".
The fact is that there is a war in Iraq/Afghanistan whether we approve or disapprove of that. It is also a fact that non-combatants get killed and injured in wars. War is horrible.
Where do we draw the line with this compensation game?
The money awarded to this Iraqi boy is out of proportion to an British injured serviceman.
Yes servicemen sign up but they are then sent to fight on our behalf. We may not think it is on our behalf and that it is the Government that sent them but the Government is elected by us. Therefore it is only right that we look after them regardless of whether they are "heroes" or not. This is on a day when there are reports that a Marine returning from Afghanistan has got MRSA (although this is denied by the hospital concerned).
I have to agree with you, Iraq and Afganastan are warzones, yes I feel sorry for the innocent peopel caught up in it but compensation can surely not be claimed??
What about the 100's maybe thousands of civilians that must have died during the initial boming of Bagdad and Basara. Surely under this courst decision all the mamed and injured are intitled to compensation?
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.