Crime not war

[endplay]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...10/ncomp10.xml

Saw this in yesterday's torygraph. If true I know of several chaps who will be in for a well deserved payout. The article does suggest that any injuries ssutained in direct confrontation with insurgents/enemy combatants et al as part of an operation will be considered war casualties and, presumably, get less compensation but it's a move in the rifgt direction.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by endplay

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...10/ncomp10.xml
Saw this in yesterday's torygraph. If true I know of several chaps who will be in for a well deserved payout. The article does suggest that any injuries ssutained in direct confrontation with insurgents/enemy combatants et al as part of an operation will be considered war casualties and, presumably, get less compensation but it's a move in the rifgt direction.

Actually it appears that the article mentions injuries sustained through direct, pre-arranged combat with insurgents. Reacting to an a direct confrontation with insurgents after an ambush would presumably be non pre-arranged!!

Of course will the MoD's laywers argue that service in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of a teeth arm constitute 'pre-arranged' as you are going to do a job which has a likelihood of requiring a bit of time on the two-way range?

Should be interesting to see how this pans out and what clauses the MoD pulls out to save a few quid.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Was under the impression that it was pretty much the MOD folding as they were advicesed by legal that they would be sued blind otherwise?

[ancientaviator62]

Where does that leave those injured in other 'non wars' that used live ammunition such as 'Confrontation' and of course the 'Troubles' ?

[Tigs2]

The Helpful Stacker
Good point

Of course will the MoD's laywers argue that service in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of a teeth arm constitute 'pre-arranged' as you are going to do a job which has a likelihood of requiring a bit of time on the two-way range?

But, didnt John Reid say of our troops that when they went to Afghanistan that they would probably leave in three years time without having fired a shot! So if the Defence Secretary thought it was not pre-arranged the lawers have little room to argue otherwise.

[Kitbag]

I have no time for the man or his master, but IIRC he actually said the forces would probably be happy to leave without firing a shot, or words to that effect. I agreed with him at the time, I'm sure the guys would much rather not be put in a situation where they had to fight for their lives (I know I would be). Perhaps he was rather more aware of the s%*t he was putting our guys into, but chose to ignore the advice being given to him (fingers in ears humming 'for auld lang syne'). Rissole