UK: Wounded Iraq vets to get millions in compensation

[maxrandb]

Looking for a better link. Ruh-Roh George

UK Telegraph

"Hundreds of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be awarded millions of pounds in compensation following a ruling by the Government that they are victims of crime not war.

British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will be paid compensation on a sliding scale of about £1,000 for a small facial scar, up to a maximum of £500,000 for the loss of a limb

Forty injured servicemen are to receive payments of up to £500,000 each in a series of test cases. This is expected to lead to claims from hundreds more of the estimated 1,000 troops injured in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

Payments will be made on a "sliding scale" of about £1,000, for a small facial scar, up to a maximum of £500,000, for the loss of a limb. The ruling was agreed, it is understood, after Government lawyers raised fears that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could be subject to a legal challenge by troops claiming they were victims of crime because they were wounded in Iraq after the end of "at war" hostilities in May 2003."

(edited to add link)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377740-details/Wounded+troops+to+get+payouts+as+victims+of+crime+not+war/article.do

[MADem]

1. Good lord, what a MESS

Don't they do medical retirements over there????

A soldier who is shot while trying to control a riot and loses his leg would be in line for compensation, the MOD said, because rioters are classified as criminals.

Yet astonishingly a colleague who is hit by a roadside bomb and also loses a leg would not get the same payout because he is judged to have suffered a deliberate and premeditated attack by enemy insurgents, rather than a 'crime.'

Similarly, British troops who are wounded during preplanned raids to arrest suspected insurgents will not get the pay-outs, because injuries in the course of 'war operations or military activities' are excluded.

A panel of officials will be expected to untangle the rules and make what risk being seen as arbitrary judgements over whether maimed and disabled troops who carried out similar duties should or not receive extra payments.

MOD officials admitted yesterday there were 'complex dividing lines' to be drawn, and were unable to say how 'insurgents' or 'criminals' in Iraq or Afghanistan were defined.

The armed forces scheme is modelled on a similar system of payments for members of public in Britain who are injured in the course of a crime.

[Barrett808]

2. (UK) Wounded troops to get payouts as victims of crime not war

Hundreds of British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are in line for sizeable compensation payments - but only if their attackers are judged to be 'criminals' rather than enemy fighters.

The Ministry of Defence said it was looking at claims from wounded personnel under the Armed Forces Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which gives pay-outs on a sliding scale up to £500,000 where troops are victims of crimes rather than being hurt on the battlefield.

But the complex scheme looks set to be dogged by bitter controversy and legal wrangling, as soldiers with similar injuries stand to receive wildly varying levels of compensation depending on the precise circumstances in which they were wounded.

A soldier who is shot while trying to control a riot and loses his leg would be in line for compensation, the MOD said, because rioters are classified as criminals.

Yet astonishingly a colleague who is hit by a roadside bomb and also loses a leg would not get the same payout because he is judged to have suffered a deliberate and premeditated attack by enemy insurgents, rather than a 'crime.'

(more)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377740-details/Wounded+troops+to+get+payouts+as+victims+of+crime+not+war/article.do