RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries

Everyone Uniform and Drill
13

Something tells me we don’t have a lot of women on this forum. Some of this rhetoric has been seriously sexist, in fact aggressively so. It does not reflect well upon any of us.

To me, it makes a lot of sense that forcing someone short to over stride will cause damage in the long term. Not that I think this will be a problem for the ATC as in my experience cadets very rarely march at 30in for drill. And for route marches I have tended to train my Nijmegen fems to walk faster not by increasing stride but by increasing their pace. (I rarely rigidly enforce a cadence if to do so would cause someone discomfort, it can be just as uncomfortable forcing a lanky lad to walk at a shorter stride.)

And as for the moaning that the justice system arbitrarily issues such awards, this is not the case. There is a lot of method to the madness. But I’m a bit rusty on PI, so may be for someone more current to update your gen.

14

Is it really a sexist group of comments?
I don’t think so.
The band wagon can be jumped on if you want. All the liberalists can scream all they want. The fact remains this is repulsive. Plenty of leeching lawyers will see £ signs here and the ambulance chasing brigade will be having a field day. A number of my former colleagues have suffered horrendous injuries over the last few years; both visible and the unseen ones. This woman has abused their memory and duty to the Crown and this nation.
Not sexist. Just fact.
I would like to point out what Zinggy said. No one marches at the 30" pace anyway. Try doing it properly and see what we mean.
The 30" pace is purely historic.
Sadly, this thread is not history. This is the here and now and I sense more of these monstrous litigations coming to the fore.
I hope this woman (oops, there I go being sexist again!) manages to sleep well at night. And you know, I bet she does!!

15

[quote=“Racing Stick” post=13665] This woman has abused their memory and duty to the Crown and this nation.
Not sexist. Just fact.[/quote]

You mean to say,

“Not Sexist, just highly inflammatory insulting opinion dressed up as fact.”

16

in which case, why have the MOD paid out?

generosity perhaps, or has the MOD got a couple of million quid burning a hole in its pinstriped trousers?

Zingy and yourself can claim as much as you like that this didn’t happen, but in order for the MOD’s lawyers to have decided to make the offer, they will have been convinced that it did.

17

in which case, why have the MOD paid out?

generosity perhaps, or has the MOD got a couple of million quid burning a hole in its pinstriped trousers?

Zingy and yourself can claim as much as you like that this didn’t happen, but in order for the MOD’s lawyers to have decided to make the offer, they will have been convinced that it did.[/quote]

A 30in pace is written down as the pace to march at but it is almost impossible to enforce with different leg lengths in a squad which is why it is not enforced in basic training as Racing Snake says its “purely historic”.

The big question is how on earth has it justified a £100,000 pay out if by her own admission it no longer effects her???

Oh and for the record I am not sexiest I just expect women to do the same as men if they are both doing the same job that is the equal rights women spent god knows how long fighting for if I were to say women are weaker so we will let them do it the easy way that in my mind would be sexist and I am sure most women would agree.

18

Just to be a difficult sod - it may change your thoughts to know that I went through RAF Halton with a 5’8 male who received compensation from the AF Compensation people for… PSI due to marching.

Unfortunately, it is a recognised condition, the cause of which varies greatly between people of both sexes. It just so happens in this case, that women are the people to have won the claim…

As another aside, how many people would like to bet this has happened forever and those who came before us just manned up and got on with it. You may or may not think those days were better, but unfortunately they are gone and we are left with the claim culture of today. I would rather rant at the culture than at the people who claimed. At the end of the day, they volunteered to serve and ended up injured. They went on to do what is expected of them in this day and age, and claimed. Times change, and rarely due to the people involved in the present day.

19

Interesting link here concerning female “over-use” injuries (no jokes please!):

Whilst there is some typical sexist commentary within, there are also so very reasonable discussions (& factual information) on this topic here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528486-females-can-not-march-like-men.html

In short, whilst the compensation claim(s) may be abhorrent to some, the legislation is very different from the “injured in action” type of claims. If you don’t like it, get the legislation changed; bitching & whining will continue for ever unless this happens.

I used to be DS at DIOT at RAFC Cranwell, & the rules/protocol changed considerably over several years to reduce the amount of “over-use” injuries (male & female). For example, cadets could only complete a certain total distance whilst on the external leadership camps (it used to be about 10 km in the morning, 10 km in the afternoon, & 5 km in the evening, for 6 - 7 days); this was shortened considerably. The LAT run was changed. We trialled several versions of the new “military trainer” as the plimmies were useless (for everything!); the result was a khaki-green version (don’t know who the manufacturer was).

Now, there used to be “abuse” of the system there too - despite the rules & limitations, one sqn was well known for beasting the cadets far, far more than the other sqns; surprise, surprise, their levels of injuries for shin splints, etc, was higher than the other sqns. I think they were instructed to back off.

One funny story about shin splints, one of the doctors was very good at assessing such injuries - he used ultra sound = guaranteed to get an “Oooh, ouch” from the cadet in question. One female cadet (assessed by DS as a malingerer), reported sick with shin splints (conveniently, very close to a major physical exercise of some kind). Doc duly did the business with the ultra sound, cadet duly did the “Oooh, ouch” noises as her legs were checked. “Oh dear” says the doc, “It’s a very bad case.” “I know” sobs the cadet. The the doc continued - “Now I will repeat the inspection with the ultra sound ON!” :lol:

20

Now I have been biting my tongue on this one, but will pop my head above the parapet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “THE COMPENSATION CULTURE”. Every claim for injury is registered with the Department for Work and Pensions whose stats have shown that largly over the past 20 years the number of claims have remained static, with a slight blip in 2001. Numbers over the last 5 years have even slowly dropped.

Have these individuals done anything wrong? They have suffered an injury by process ostensibly as a result of systems or processes not being followed. That has caused them to not be physically able to complete their training and commence a career in the RAF.

Either the Court has decided against the MOD, or the MOD’s own lawyers have said theyre on to a looser here - they do not do so lightly. The MOD is one of the most defensive Defendants there is ever likely to be.

We don’t have any detail on the figures (and I find anything in the Mail to be highly suspect here) but what they would be entitled to is compensation for the injury based on the Court guidelines, hey presto:-

[quote]JC Guidelines 12th Edition - 2013

(D) Injuries to the Pelvis and Hips

(b) Moderate

(i) Significant injury to the pelvis or hip but any permanent disability is not major and any future risk not great.
£19,550 to £28,750

(ii) These cases may involve hip replacement or other surgery. Where it has been carried out wholly successfully the award will tend to the top of the bracket, but the bracket also includes cases where hip replacement may be necessary in the foreseeable future or where there are more than minimal ongoing symptoms. £9,250 to £19,550©

Lesser Injuries

(i) Cases where despite significant injury there is little or no residual disability. Where there has been a complete recovery within two years, the award is unlikely to exceed £5,650 [/quote]

In addition, the Claimants would be entitled to loss of earnings. NOT simply what the RAF Would have paid them (inc pay rises, interest etc) but the difference between what they could have earned and what they did earn. Cost of living would be taken into account, as it is more expensive in general (housing, food etc costs civvies more than mil).

So there would have been some calculator bashing, undoubtly some negotiation and some figures would have been produced. In my experience the figure quoted in the Mail is likely to be “somewhat inaccurate”.

So, have these ladies done anything wrong? If you believe they have then please explain what?

The explanation about the difference between payments due to Tort (i.e. MOD is liable) and the AF Compensation Scheme are totally different and based on a different premise. Do remember that in addition to the AF Compensation, wounded personell receive additional benefits, pension etc over and above the initial payment. But here is not the place to debate the rights, wrongs or otherwise, just understand the circumstances do not directly compare.

Rant Over

21

So she gets loss of earnings even though by her own admission it longer effects her so nothing to stop her working? Who is to say she would of passed training yet she still gets all that cash including money for a pension which as I said before you dont get at the 9 year point she signed up for

22

One example of that being the case is where there may also be a loss of earning capacity. That is where due to the injury you are no longer as competitive on the open employment market as you would have been but for the injury you caused. These awards are designed to compensate you throughout life, so if the effects will last you for your whole life, expect a relatively decent sum of compensation.

23

Baldrick, that’s more Smith v Manchester, and whilst the individual in question may very well have had an element of an S&M award, my money would be on straight difference in pay.

Consider this (and its simplified for calculation purposes). SAC does 9 years in the RAF, never makes Cpl. So pay grades 2-9 apply. Assume they’re average, so say their average pay over 9 years was £20.2k per year (pay level 4). Over 9 years that’s £181,800 - nearly double the award the lady supposedly received.

Now noting that she has a job, will undoubtedly be earning. Lets say she earns £17k a year. Over the same 9 years she could earn £153k vs £181k. That gives a straight loss of £28,000.

And that’s a very simple way of looking at it. Take into cost of living, food, training, time out of work before being employed etc.

Add in the pension issue - she may not have been entitled to a full military pension after just 9 years, but her pension pot would have grown. Loss of pension is a perfectly valid part of a claim of this nature.

And just because the injury “doesn’t trouble her” doesn’t mean she doesn’t still have it. It may not be grossly disabling, but it could well stop certain physical activities – you know injuries of this nature are usually reported on by a number of surgeons, doctors and consultants, and the MOD would likely have used their own pet doctors too.

So the point I’m trying to make is – what’s published in the Daily/Sunday Mail is generally Tripe. You do not know without looking at the detail - which none of us know - whether or not they deserve the award or are on the “compo gravy train” laughing all the way to the bank.

If the MOD did not think they were legally and morally responsible, why did they pay out? If they thought the sums claimed were too high, they could have refused to pay as much (I suspect they did). They always have the option of going to Court and proving their Defence.

24

I was just trying to give a simplistic example. My civil knowledge is a little rusty, having only done a family seat so far. But the whole tenor of the debate on here has irritated me. Especially the way in which some people think that these awards are as arbitrary as the US jury awards. There’s a lot of complex work that goes into these things.

Even more insulting is the allegation that this is somehow an insult to anyone’s memory. Disgusting sentiment.

25

Oh I wholeheartedly agree with your view Baldrick. I just enjoy correcting people! :wink:

26

That’s half the reason I do this job.

27

I wonder how many tall men, say 6 foot 3 plus, have suffered similarly by having to cut short their normal stride length to accommodate the shorties of either gender over the years? Or how many small men have suffered similarly when carrying packs? If either of those groups complained they’d be told to get back in line and man up.

I don’t think it’s sexist to say things like women who crave equality want to be like men in all it’s guises, but then moan when their craving bites them back. My wife saw this on the BBC and thought that the MOD had been taken for mugs by a bunch of moaning minnies. She said they joined up and if they want the same pay they should shut up and get on with it or get out.

28

How many people have suffered life changing injuries or illness because they “manned up and got on with it”? Not just from a military perspective, but from all walks of life over the last 20,30,40 years?

29

I know for a fact it’s happened in this organisation. The result of telling someone to ‘man up’ who then suffers an injury, is that you are very negligent. The real answer is to realise it’s not the 1950s anymore and that not everyone can do exactly the same things.

30

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=13703]they should shut up and get on with it or get out.[/quote]They did.

Now they’re broken.

31

Liberalists. So many of them around.
OK we get it! You like to hide behind the law and ambulance chase like I said earlier.
You know what, it makes no difference whether it’s right or wrong legally.
It’s moralistic. Something lawyers have no sense of.
As for comments about comparing it to those servicemen killed or injured. I hate saying this, but unless you have stood shoulder to shoulder with colleagues on the wall then please don’t pass remark on it. You haven’t deserved it. Sit in your offices and dream of being proper servicemen. Perhaps then you’ll understand why it grips the s**t of those of us that have earned the right to wear a uniform. These people in this incident have no interest in the honour and integrity which wearing a uniform for the Queen involves. If they did, they would push through it. Because that’s what being a serviceman is all about. Having to dig deep and fight through difficulties mere civvies have no comprehension of.
As I say this is a moral situation, one that cannot be argued or debated with the use of legal terms and quoting case law. If you can justify why these people get more than the aforementioned injured servicemen without whimpering on about “it’s not the 1950’s” then please do. But hey, make it a good argument and don’t insult the intelligence of the members of this forum who find this clearly abhorrent incident difficult to stomach.

32

[quote=“Racing Stick” post=13721]Liberalists. So many of them around.
OK we get it! You like to hide behind the law and ambulance chase like I said earlier.
You know what, it makes no difference whether it’s right or wrong legally.
It’s moralistic. Something lawyers have no sense of.
As for comments about comparing it to those servicemen killed or injured. I hate saying this, but unless you have stood shoulder to shoulder with colleagues on the wall then please don’t pass remark on it. You haven’t deserved it. Sit in your offices and dream of being proper servicemen. Perhaps then you’ll understand why it grips the s**t of those of us that have earned the right to wear a uniform. These people in this incident have no interest in the honour and integrity which wearing a uniform for the Queen involves. If they did, they would push through it. Because that’s what being a serviceman is all about. Having to dig deep and fight through difficulties mere civvies have no comprehension of.
As I say this is a moral situation, one that cannot be argued or debated with the use of legal terms and quoting case law. If you can justify why these people get more than the aforementioned injured servicemen without whimpering on about “it’s not the 1950’s” then please do. But hey, make it a good argument and don’t insult the intelligence of the members of this forum who find this clearly abhorrent incident difficult to stomach.[/quote]

Actually we don’t have to make any argument. There is nothing to say that people who suffer battlefield injuries receive less than these women who had the misfortune of suffering their injuries in service in the UK. You base your argument on good old Daily Mail sweeping statements and hearsay. So far, the person who would know, one of us anti-moralistic evil lawyers, has provided all you ask. I suggest you take the time to read it.