Matteeboy

Afraid I don't have the source or a date for this but this story is a shocker

Worst injured soldier ever to survive is awarded less than RAF typist with a sore thumb
by MATTHEW HICKLEY


On the front line: Ben Parkinson was proud to serve his country
Ben Parkinson volunteered to serve his country on the Afghan front line - and paid a terrible price.

The young paratrooper suffered a total of 37 terrible injuries when he was blown up by a landmine.

He lost both his legs and sustained grievous damage to his spine, skull, pelvis, hands, spleen and ribcage, leaving him in a coma for months.

Incredibly, 23-year-old Ben is still alive almost a year later - according to his doctors the most badly-injured soldier ever to survive.

All his mother wants is to buy a bungalow so she can care for him there.

Yet as recompense for his ruined life, Ben has been offered only £152,150 - little more than half the maximum award for maimed military personnel and less than a third of the £484,000 doled out to an RAF typist who claimed she had suffered repetitive strain injury to her thumb.

Yesterday Ben's mother Diane Dernie told how she plans to challenge the award in the High Court, and spoke of her disgust at this "insult" to her brave son.

"We won't let him lose his chance to come home," she said. "It is iniquitous the way his injuries have been dismissed as nothing. He deserves better."

Mrs Dernie has been told that Ben's case does not qualify for legal aid. So she is appealing for help to raise £50,000 to fund the first High Court challenge against the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, arguing that its rules are patently unfair in the most severe cases.

A successful judicial review would ensure that several other soldiers maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive financial security.

Ben's case exemplifies the mounting concern about the Government's treatment of the Armed Forces.

Iwan

I think they were just talking about that on BBC news, pretty shocking.

Matteeboy

Daily Mail running it:

Worst injured soldier ever to survive is awarded less than RAF typist with a sore thumb | the Daily Mail

Snazy

Disgusting.

If a fund is set up for their appeal, I would give in an instant!

Maybe an official SN one is a good idea

mrtheedge2u2

Truely disgusting.......

I would also sue the government for causing undue distress!!!

I am 100% confident that they [the soldiers family] will win. Whoever turns up to defend the MoD should be utterly ashamed of themselfs.

andythejock01wrx

I think the legal basis for this is that one is based on "The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme" and the other is based on civil statute law, where it must be proved that the employer has failed to meet one of the various employment regulations currently in force (Health & Safety at Work Act 1992 etc). If they do then the plaintiff gets an award based on recent case law for injury claims as opposed to that set out by the Scheme.

Anyway, it's utter nonsense and the AFCS clealy needs to be brought into line with current civilian awards.

Andy Mc

OllyK

I'm probably not going to be popular for saying this, but if an employer was negligent then they pay compensation and should hopefully do something to prevent re-occurence. How do you prevent future squaddies from getting shot or blown up in a war zone short of not sending them there?

Snazy

Not unpopular with me
I make you right, but think its a double edged sword, where its a risk of the job, BUT needs proper compensation too. Especially considering the injuries caused.

andythejock01wrx

There's probably some truth in that. I deal with EL (and other) insurance claims and certainly when employers have a number of EL claims as a result of their staff not having ear defenders, gloves and other equipment, they usually do something about it to prevent further claims.

Still, even if the MOD is in no way liable, maybe the British people would be happy to pay (though taxation) adequate compensation to soldiers who have been invalided whilst serving theur country ? The 1st post suggest that the current awards are unsatisfactory.

mrtheedge2u2

Andy, I also thought about that, but then you get into the realm where people would be pissed off and saying "I never supported the war or the lies so why should I be taxed" etc

I think that if you take a hit like he has done the MoD should pay out big regardless of it being "his job".

To get the money back the government could start by reducing the wages of MP's in line with the countries average wage.

And another thing if I had my way I would round up of the supporters or the lies and war, arm them and ship those ****ers out to Afghanistan and Iraq. Lets see how they believe it when they are stood down the barrel of a gun.

Petem95

Thats shocking - especially when you regularly hear of minorities being awarded much larger sums due to having their feeling hurt after being called a hurtful word in the office or something!

Infractme!

I have no idea why anyone is surprised. The ethos of this or any government is to use the meat of your loved ones in the grinder and absolve themselves of any responsibility afterwards. That's the way it's always been. They don't give an **** about their service personnel once they've been used up.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

The politics is utterly irrelevant. Every Country has a duty of care to those who volunteer to protect it. This country, and its public, has neglected that duty of care for 60 years.

Sosbanite

Well said, the way this country treats service personnel in these circumstances is downright shameful - especially so when you see hundreds of thousands of pounds or millions being awarded in city sex discrimination cases and the like.
We really need to get our priorities right and give assistance to people like this in real need as opposed to handing out money and houses to idle chavs on the dole etc.

Boils my ****

wrx-kris

I THINK I'M GONNA BE SICK!

OllyK

Or maybe they wouldn't as they don't think our troops should be there in the first place?

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

So you want the Military to pick and choose when to obey orders then?

Good news for me.. Military Dictatorship might just be what this country needs.

Leslie

All of us join the military knowing the score in that we may well find ourselves in a dangerous environment eventually. Most of us however believe that we are doing this kind of duty in order to protect our own country from attack by outsiders. That is the deal basically!

What we don't expect is to be sent off to a foreign country to fight other peoples' wars or even to attack another country illegally. Its does not help when other so called allies are kept out of the dangerous zones and our lads are sent in to do it largely by themselves under atrocious conditions and grossly under equipped. They were sent in to what was described as a zone where there were WMD to be used against them with insufficient protective kit against chemical or biological attack or body armour for that matter. They even need food parcels sent out by their families to keep them going since they are being provided only with K rations by the authorities!

This story about compensation is shameful and even the minister who was cornered about it on the box last night had to admit it was all wrong and said of course that it was being studied! I bet it is.

This is all an indication of the attitude of these creeps who send our lads in to these places for political reasons and shows that they just don't give a "cats connection" about their welfare. I wrote a post a while ago about the treatment of ex military personnel by the MOD on the day that they have left the services. It is as though you no longer exist!

What really gets me is how they all say how wonderful our military are at the drop of a hat in an effort to endear themseves to everyone. What a load of hypochrites they all are!

It is long past time for a change in the situation!

Les

David Lock

What, if any, compensation does the family of a soldier that is killed in action receive? dl

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Not a great deal David. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but can dig them out.

We're all pretty dependent on our own life insurance, which until very recently, has been provided by only a couple of companies at significant cost to ourselves. A new life insurance scheme has been brought in though which is actually very good value compared to what we used to pay.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Prasius,

The Scheme is Called Service Life insurance (SLI) and is very good indeed. But again I don't defend the MOD but read below.

From the MOD Site.

Recent press reports have claimed that an RAF clerk received a civil compensation payout of £484,000. The reports compared this figure with the apparently smaller lump sums awarded to Service personnel injured on operations under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS).

Much of the reporting has been inaccurate and has made misleading comparisons between compensation paid by way of a claim to civil damages against the MOD and those made under the auspices of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. The payout made to the RAF clerk was settlement of a claim for civil damages and this is completely separate from the AFCS. The injury which the individual made a claim for was not Repetitive Strain Injury as alleged in some of the press coverage. It was a far more serious and debilitating condition which means the individual is unlikely to be able to work again. Comparisons between civil compensation and the AFCS are misleading because:

• The lump sum payment represents only part of the overall compensation package for serious injuries under the AFCS. Those most seriously injured also receive a regular tax-free payment for life.
• Unlike civil compensation, the AFCS is a no-fault scheme. This means the individual does not have to prove fault or negligence on the part of the MOD in order to qualify for an award, and the level of the award is guaranteed.
• AFCS payments do not interfere with a person's right to claim civil damages against the MOD - if they believe their injury was a result of negligence on the part of the MOD, they can sue the MOD for civil compensation on top of the money they receive from the AFCS.

There have also been some reports that the AFCS does not properly cover personnel who have sustained multiple injuries in a single incident. The AFCS does pay out more for multiple injuries. However, in order to ensure the compensation paid is always appropriate, the current rules on multiple injuries are being reviewed to see if they need to be updated. It is too early to say whether this review will result in any changes to the scheme, although this is possible.
The AFCS is a modern, fair and easily understood system which, for the first time, permits personnel to receive compensation whilst they are still serving. The AFCS offers a lump sum payment (tax-free) which is paid whilst serving. An additional payment is made on discharge to those more seriously injured, in the form of a Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP). GIP is tax-free, inflation-proof and paid monthly for life. It can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds over a lifetime in the more severe cases. AFCS tariff levels reflect proven best practice in managing injury and ill-health including mental illness and are modelled on existing compensation schemes such as the Judicial Studies Board award guidelines and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Despite the ongoing review, it is important that Service personnel continue to submit their claims for compensation, including those claiming for multiple injuries. For the multiple injury cases, claims will be held at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and processed once the outcome of the review is known.

David Lock

Thanks - it crossed my mind that a badly injured soldier might actually receive more than a dead one.

I can imagine that private life policies are going to be bloody expensive for obvious reasons. dl