You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
YJCMTSU: British troops to get 'crime' compensation
2006-12-12
LONDON(istan) -- Hundreds of British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be awarded millions of dollars in compensation after the government ruled that they are victims of crime, not war.
Huh?
Forty injured servicemen are to receive payments of up to almost $1 million 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 $2,000 for a small facial scar to $1 million for the loss of a limb.

Sources said the ruling was reached after government attorneys raised fears that the Defense Ministry could be subject to a legal challenge by troops claiming that they were victims of crime because they were wounded in Iraq after the end of "at war" hostilities in May 2003.
I can't... words just... nevermind.
All those injured fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who have remained in the army, could be entitled to lodge claims under the new plan. Those who are medically discharged will receive war pensions, as is already the case.

This plan is similar to that run by the Home Office, the British interior ministry, which makes payments to the victims of crimes such as muggings, rape, burglary and robbery. Troops will be informed officially of the new policy in the next few weeks and the first payments will be made in early spring.

Until now, the Defense Ministry has paid criminal compensation only for incidents in which troops were injured in "civilian situations" such as a fight in a nightclub while off duty.

Those injured in Northern Ireland during the sectarian violence were also eligible for such compensation because it was deemed that the terrorists attacking them were criminals and not enemy combatants in a conventional war.

The new ruling and expansion of compensation to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts means insurgents or terrorists carrying out surprise attacks and sabotage missions are regarded as criminals and not enemy troops. It is thought that the only circumstances in which troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be eligible for criminal compensation is when they were involved in prearranged, offensive operations directly targeting insurgents.

Most casualties in Iraq have received their wounds through car bombings, sniping and rocket attacks -- circumstances not dissimilar to most attacks sustained in Ulster. Defense sources say the ruling reflects the changing nature of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although both theaters of conflict are described frequently as war zones, in strict legal terms British troops are not at war.

The government decision for compensation is a response to demands from legislators, military chiefs and the public to provide the armed forces with better pay, accommodation and medical care.
Geebus.
Posted by:.com

#7  OP: Thanks for the update, however I thought that only those @ 50% and ^ would receive this; those of us below that line were still in the old methodology. Of course, I won't see any increase, as Mrs. Ret will take it as her compensation for having to put up with me :)
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2006-12-12 17:58  

#6  One of the things the GOP congress managed to pass was the elimination of the "dual-compensation" clause for VA disability payments. Beginning in 2004, and increasing during the next ten years, the amount paid to VA disabled veterans will gradually be freed from the one-to-one deduction from retired pay. The last change will be in 2013, after which no disability pay will be offset from retirees military pay. I've seen my military take-home retirement almost double in the last three years as these rules have been implemented. I'm currently at 70% disabled.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-12 17:14  

#5  I've read some comments in the UK MSM about how much better US vets are treated than UK vets. This may be a way around the discrepancy. Need to hear from a UK local about this.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-12-12 17:09  

#4  P2K: A slight correction to your comment re: VA disability pay. IN the case of retired military folks that have some level of VA-determined eligibility, the amount you receive from the VA is DEDUCTED from your retired pay and sent to you via the VA. What it amounts to is that the VA paid portion is tax-free. Congress has resisted for many years, any attempts to pay VA disability separate from your retired pay. A few years ago, I determined my 30% disability was worth $46 for the year (tax savings).
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2006-12-12 14:24  

#3  "Although both theaters of conflict are described frequently as war zones, in strict legal terms British troops are not at war."

Why do I get the mental picture of some Jihadist MoFo reading the above quote and laughing so hard his turban falls off?
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-12-12 10:44  

#2  A Brit poster is going to have to enlighten us on the British compensation system. In the US, the Veterans Administration has extensive hospital networks set up for continued care specifically of service related wounds and injuries, with those having war related injuries receiving priority, not part of a general national health service. The VA has programs for adjustments to include things like no charge vehicles for those who require special adaptations to operate. The VA pays life long tax free compensation for service related injuries. Or for the British, is everything sort of thrown into the general social services support offices?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2006-12-12 09:27  

#1  I don't quite follow the semantics of war vs. crime, but I cannot disagree with the idea of compensating the injured soldiers, and these amounts do not seem unreasonable, nor unaffordable as long as the war level stays low.
Posted by: Glenmore   2006-12-12 08:23  

00:00