ewerk 30221 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its a bit bloody different though. I agree about the blame culture and the money that people are trying to make for largely their own stupidity. Like, "Oh, yes I did break into his house, but slashed my face while jumping through his window. His fault for now putting a warning on the glass". Of course they know they are going to be shot, hence I agree that they should not be able to sue for compensation. But, and this is different, the government should offer those who return from fighting for their country injured a standard package for their loss/injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 172 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Simple, if the risk of injury whilst defending your country is unacceptable, don't sign up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44258 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Unfortunate surname. And haway let's try and keep it sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 You're talking about someone who was getting paid pretty shit wages to be there in the first place coming home and having to accept that they'll spend the rest of their life, and have to raise their family, on DLA. Sorry, but I think they're due some compensation. It is very unfortunate that that does happen but as I have already said they will be aware of that risk when they sign up. Should it have happened due to faulty/or lack of equipment then they certainly should be entitled to compensation but if not then its simply an occupational hazard, albeit a very serious one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion. About as intelligent as yours. Compensation is paid for the effect on the person's ability to earn for the rest of their life based on the fact they were injured whilst in service of the country. Especially if that person is only contracted for a certain period. Remember they are then asked to leave the army if they can no longer serve. Do you expect them to live off the dole and invalidity benefit fo rthe rest of their lives. Would you be happier with no army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Simple, if the risk of injury whilst defending your country is unacceptable, don't sign up ! You expect to get shot in war conditions. Not blown up due to religious differences when you're on leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion. About as intelligent as yours. I'm offering my opinion while you've resorted to religious/political slurs, are you sure you're not Michael Richards? Compensation is paid for the effect on the person's ability to earn for the rest of their life based on the fact they were injured whilst in service of the country. Especially if that person is only contracted for a certain period. Remember they are then asked to leave the army if they can no longer serve. Do you expect them to live off the dole and invalidity benefit fo rthe rest of their lives. Would you be happier with no army? Obviously it is undesirable for both the individual and society for them to be on benefits for the rest of their life and an effort should be made to find them a suitable job within the army. We're talking about the extremes here, my main point was more directed towards those people who were shot or injured in another way but go on to make full recoveries and can return to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 "an effort should be made to find them a suitable job within the army" never has happened and never will happen the LAST thing any Army wants is a load of shot-up people around the place - hardly going to impress the new recruits is it? they all get rid of them ASAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 they all get rid of them ASAP I'm not sure what the practice is but they should try and find them some sort of employment whether it be within the army or another government agency, its certainly preferable to them being on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Its all about the blame culture that has developed in this country, its never the individual's fault. If you are injured in the line of duty then you should accept that this is what you signed for. How about if you're on a bus coming back to barracks and some tim c*nt blows it up? Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion. About as intelligent as yours. I'm offering my opinion while you've resorted to religious/political slurs, are you sure you're not Michael Richards? Compensation is paid for the effect on the person's ability to earn for the rest of their life based on the fact they were injured whilst in service of the country. Especially if that person is only contracted for a certain period. Remember they are then asked to leave the army if they can no longer serve. Do you expect them to live off the dole and invalidity benefit fo rthe rest of their lives. Would you be happier with no army? Obviously it is undesirable for both the individual and society for them to be on benefits for the rest of their life and an effort should be made to find them a suitable job within the army. We're talking about the extremes here, my main point was more directed towards those people who were shot or injured in another way but go on to make full recoveries and can return to work. No I am an atheist who was in hospital with the guys who got their bus blown up in N.I after coming back off leave. Those that survived of course. All in the name of catholicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Were they not aware that there was a bit of a row going on in Northern Ireland at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 (edited) Expect to be shot - absolutely. There was an army bloke on Five Live a while ago when the presenter was suggesting some soldiers would be finding it hard to carry on after something happened to another battalion. He shouted her down brilliantly, it was inspiring stuff. These are soldiers, they are employed to take this risk, not to have feelings per se. Support packages for the injured - of course. If someone is unable to carry on a normal life, as in they lose limbs or are paralysed ect they should be able to rely on support from the government. Yes they took the risk but if they are still alive they've earned that support IMO. Individual compensation - no. See above. I agree with JawD. Edited November 22, 2006 by nufc4ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Were they not aware that there was a bit of a row going on in Northern Ireland at the time? Yes but we were begged to intervene by the catholic minority in 1969 to save them from the f*ckwit protestant bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 ewerk, aren't you from the North? I'm not sure that I know many Irish people who are able to look at the British army any less emotionally than the English. I did assume he was a Northern Irish Catholic like, from what I've gleaned in the past and I thought that, in relation to this, he was making an emotional response. As am I, I suppose, although I'm not denying it. My response certainly is influenced by being a Northern Irish Catholic but not in relation to the army. Its the whole culture of people expecting something for nothing that I detest, "I got shot in battle", "I tripped on a paving stone", "I can't get a job" etc etc. People always want someone else to look after them and don't take responsibility, I'm sure that this won't go down well on a Newcastle board but Thatcher was right when she said its all about the individual and people need to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility. Being a Northern Irish Catholic I can see the results of people who have employed this tactic successfully out of neccessity because they got nothing handed to them. Without wanting to sound like my area has the monopoly on hard times my experience of my own family and people I know has shown me how far hard work can get you without relying on the government and others to help. So the army isn't the only route for those with no qualifications and should they choose this route they shouldn't expect a hand out when they get injured in the line of duty. Should have just emigrated, free will and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 19862 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think they should expect to be shot at. The people are prolly more concerned WHY they have gone to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44258 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think they should expect to be shot at. The people are prolly more concerned WHY they have gone to war. I think being shot at might be their more immediate concern tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 19862 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think they should expect to be shot at. The people are prolly more concerned WHY they have gone to war. I think being shot at might be their more immediate concern tbh. Well yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10682 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think it's yet again an argument over semantics. I'm sure ewerk does not mean that once a blokes been shot, tough shit buh bye go home. I think he's more concerned with the growing habit of this country to try and sue. As JawD said, it shouldn't be a question of an individual "suing" the government or the armed forces, but instead, there should be in place a sufficient invalidity package from the army. Which should include monetary subsidy for future work, rehabilitation training, any and all medical costs that occur as a result of the injury (even if that means psychotherapy). Everyone in this thread seems to have got tangled up in arguing over the words people are using, instead of what they're actually trying to say. It strikes me that everyone is agreeing with eachother til they're blue in the face. it's almost like you're a bunch of argumentative bastards who're bored at work/home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster 0 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Expect to be shot at - yes. Compensation - yes. So why compensate them for something that they expect? Surely they're already being compensated for that by their wages? Totally shite wages though for risking their lives for their country. In Iraq they might be there for Bush's oil, but that aint their fault is it? To them it's still fighting for your country. Should definitely be looked after if they come home injured IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Noel Gallagher hasnt lived a real life for over ten years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think it's yet again an argument over semantics. I'm sure ewerk does not mean that once a blokes been shot, tough shit buh bye go home. I think he's more concerned with the growing habit of this country to try and sue. As JawD said, it shouldn't be a question of an individual "suing" the government or the armed forces, but instead, there should be in place a sufficient invalidity package from the army. Which should include monetary subsidy for future work, rehabilitation training, any and all medical costs that occur as a result of the injury (even if that means psychotherapy). Everyone in this thread seems to have got tangled up in arguing over the words people are using, instead of what they're actually trying to say. It strikes me that everyone is agreeing with eachother til they're blue in the face. it's almost like you're a bunch of argumentative bastards who're bored at work/home. Aye, I agree with you there. They should be looked after but perhaps suing for compensation isn't something I'd approve of - depends on the circumstances. Also, anyone is free to sue anyone they like I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think it's yet again an argument over semantics. I'm sure ewerk does not mean that once a blokes been shot, tough shit buh bye go home. I think he's more concerned with the growing habit of this country to try and sue. As JawD said, it shouldn't be a question of an individual "suing" the government or the armed forces, but instead, there should be in place a sufficient invalidity package from the army. Which should include monetary subsidy for future work, rehabilitation training, any and all medical costs that occur as a result of the injury (even if that means psychotherapy). Exactly my feelings on the matter. If you do join the army you should acknowledge the risk of being shot, but this doesn't mean you should be thrown out on the scrapheap if you are. Suing the government/army is a different matter altogether though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I come to a thread like this and wonder.....Where do I start?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I come to a thread like this and wonder.....Where do I start?! here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now