Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Army compensation

Much whining seems to be going on in the press regarding the amount the MoD is willing to pay out to injured soldiers.

I'm sorry do I have a different definition of "compensation" to the press? If I'm asked to perform duties outside of my job's remit I may be compensated, if I'm fired because of cost-cutting measures I may get compensation; but both of those are voluntary. However if an injury occurs during my job due to negligence on the part of my employer I may be eligible for compensation, but that's for a court to decide.

So what's going on with the army? We hear that a soldier out on patrol got shot in the thigh and another injured in training received compensation for such... why? Just out of curiosity what are we (because after all it's our taxes that fund the army) paying them for? They're soldiers - fighting is what they're supposed to do, getting injured is sadly part and parcel a likely consequence of that.

They weren't conscripted they joined up voluntarily, are they saying that had they known they'd end up fighting they wouldn't have joined? I'm confused to me it's like joining the fire service then complaining I've been burnt dealing with a fire, hardly an unexpected occurrence.

Now if it was the MoD's fault they were injured then fine that's a court matter, likewise if their contract of employment set out a disability pension then that's that; but compensation for doing what they're paid to do?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Arguably a soldiers job is not not get shot, but still…

FlipC said...

Quite. I've rephrased that a little better I hope.

stuart camron said...

When such grave wounds as well as death occur, the victim's family constituents can assertion for infantry compensation from the infantry ruling authorities in alignment to make up for the decrease they or their family pain due to the loss the casualty incurred due to the services supply for these infantry flats.

RAF Compensation