UK breaks military covenant.

**InsaneApache** · 08-15-2007, 13:44

A spokesman for the Legion said it had decided to focus on medical care, coroners' inquests and compensation. Last month it emerged that a civilian typist with the RAF received a payment of £484,000 after injuring her thumb at work while a 23-year-old paratrooper, Ben Parkinson, who will need care for the rest of his life after a serious landmine injury, will be given £152,150. Many injured personnel have still to receive their payments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...148952,00.html

No surprise that the morons in the government make a balls up of the most basic issue. If you expect soldiers, sailors and airmen to risk their lives, then you should move hell and high water to ensure that they and their families and properly cared for.

A rotten attitude from a rotten regime.

**naut** · 08-15-2007, 14:13

Despicable.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 08-15-2007, 16:43

Two posts in, and there's nothing left to be said.

I do wonder what type of thumb injury a typist received - because it doesn't sound like it got torn or cut off, and even that wouldn't justify the money given her.

CR

**econ21** · 08-15-2007, 16:55

The typist's award includes lawyer's fees. Once you get the lawyers on two sides of a dispute going to town, you can easily start to ratchet up large bills.

Insane Apache: you are doing a good imitation of Peter Hitchens huffing and puffing with your "rotten attitude from rotten regime" comment. These awards are made by juries, not the government. I rather doubt the Labour Party has introduced any legislation to award the armed forces less compensation (or civilian typists more).

**Pannonian** · 08-15-2007, 17:10

The problem seems more to be the overreach of civilian rights than the breaking of the military covenant. As for the additional funds for veterans - in the budgets he's presented, Brown has shown a taste for "investments" that are believed to be contributive overall, either in the form of lower social costs (less money needed by the Home Secretary and his kin to deal with problems), or helping the economy (thus more money to be raised). So if you want more money for veterans, either vote for a party that can convincingly cut costs and free up funds for other things, or one that will raise taxes to pay for these things you favour. From every poll in the last 10 years, the Tories aren't trusted to do the first, and no-one is willing to cough up more tax-money money to fund their pet projects, preferring to write outraged letters from Tunbridge Wells instead (it gets rid of bile while costing only postage).

Let's face it, if the Tories got into power, they wouldn't be any better disposed towards veterans either. Their disposition is to funnel money towards bells and whistles projects, not old soldiers who are of no further use to the state. This hypocrisy is not a failing that's characteristic of any single government or party, but of our country as a whole.

**InsaneApache** · 08-15-2007, 17:57

Originally Posted by econ21

Insane Apache: you are doing a good imitation of Peter Hitchens huffing and puffing with your "rotten attitude from rotten regime" comment. These awards are made by juries, not the government. I rather doubt the Labour Party has introduced any legislation to award the armed forces less compensation (or civilian typists more).

I didn't realise that Hitchens wrote for the Gruniad!

Of course I see it clearly now, this has got nothing to do with HM Government. I am a silly person, aren't I?

Let's face it, if the Tories got into power, they wouldn't be any better disposed towards veterans either. Their disposition is to funnel money towards bells and whistles projects, not old soldiers who are of no further use to the state. This hypocrisy is not a failing that's characteristic of any single government or party, but of our country as a whole.

Exactly.

**Blodrast** · 08-15-2007, 18:40

It's not "the country", it's the politicians and bureaucrats in charge of things they don't care about/for, or think of.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 08-15-2007, 19:21

No, it's the country. Though the Army in particualr has always been loathed when we are not threatened by a foriegn power. Part of the problem at the moment is the poor equipping of soldiers, given that Bowman is already ten years out of date and has yet to be fully implemented. The issue of the SA80 program is another case in point. Lack of body armour and rock bottom morale, lack of Warrior IFVs, lack of Tanks, lack of spare parts. The Rape of the country regiments which has caused considerable anger here in particualr.

Then there's the absolute gutting of the RAF and the hamstringing of the Navy.

Added to all this, many of the recent "reforms", such as the selling off of the Army's real estate, has increased costs and caused totally new problems. Spending six hours in a guardroom with a broken armoury alarm because the REMEs who used to fix that stuff have been discharged and the contracter and the head office in Germany can't get their acts together is infuriating. That's a personnal experience from yours truely, I don't know how long it was broken for but from the state of the notification sign I'd say weeks if not months.

Needless to say the fault and the distraction constitute serious security risks.

**Bijo** · 08-15-2007, 19:52

Well, what can I say? It is kind of... stupid. A soldier who is seriously injured deserves better treatment than a typist who is only minorly injured. Ah, whatever.

**Fragony** · 08-15-2007, 20:02

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, it's the country. Though the Army in particualr has always been loathed when we are not threatened by a foriegn power. Part of the problem at the moment is the poor equipping of soldiers, given that Bowman is already ten years out of date and has yet to be fully implemented. The issue of the SA80 program is another case in point. Lack of body armour and rock bottom morale, lack of Warrior IFVs, lack of Tanks, lack of spare parts. The Rape of the country regiments which has caused considerable anger here in particualr.

Then there's the absolute gutting of the RAF and the hamstringing of the Navy.

Added to all this, many of the recent "reforms", such as the selling off of the Army's real estate, has increased costs and caused totally new problems. Spending six hours in a guardroom with a broken armoury alarm because the REMEs who used to fix that stuff have been discharged and the contracter and the head office in Germany can't get their acts together is infuriating. That's a personnal experience from yours truely, I don't know how long it was broken for but from the state of the notification sign I'd say weeks if not months.

Needless to say the fault and the distraction constitute serious security risks.

Sounds great, way to treat people that risk their lifes. Completily different here, we may not have the biggest army but it's extremily modern and well equiped.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 08-15-2007, 23:20

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sounds great, way to treat people that risk their lifes. Completily different here, we may not have the biggest army but it's extremily modern and well equiped.

There was no toilet either, and they didn't tell me where the button was to open the gate, took me ten minutes to find it. And I was the only one on guard.

Seriously though, no toilet! Six hours, straight after lunch until dinner.

**Pannonian** · 08-16-2007, 00:12

Originally Posted by Bijo

Well, what can I say? It is kind of... stupid. A soldier who is seriously injured deserves better treatment than a typist who is only minorly injured. Ah, whatever.

They deserve better treatment, but we're not prepared to pay for it. You might find many of those who are outraged at the underfunding of our armed forces are also adept in finding ways to avoid paying their full share of taxes. As I said, a rant to the Mail or Telegraph gets rid of the righteous anger while only costing them the postage for the letter.