Crime not war
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crime not war
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Where does that leave those injured in other 'non wars' that used live ammunition such as 'Confrontation' and of course the 'Troubles' ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Helpful Stacker
Good point
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.
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
