RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries

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

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.

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.

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.

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

That’s half the reason I do this job.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

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=“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.

If this is going to becomne abusive I’m going to lock it (and you could argue it already has, and that I should lock it now!).

I’m willing to keep this open provided people remain civil to each other.

[quote=“Baldrick” post=13722][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.[/quote]

Tell that to a friend of mine who was shot in Afghan and is now in a wheel chair paralised from the waste down he got £10,000 form the MOD.

I agree with what you say about the Daily Fail but it was reported in nearly all of the papers a quick google online will show you that

your spectactular arrogance is surpased only by your ignorance. Zingy and yourself are not the only people in this board who have been to war, do not dare to presume you speak for all. you do not.

your spectactular arrogance is surpased only by your ignorance. Zingy and yourself are not the only people in this board who have been to war, do not dare to presume you speak for all. you do not.[/quote]

Jumping the gun here a bit?? no one ever said anything about us going to “war” the point being made was that she got a shed load more money than someone that had been injured on ops.

I was talking to a friend of mine that I served with at RTS in Halton he knows on of the 3 girls that had this issue and got a pay out as he was one of the DI’s on her FLT he said she would of been booted out a lot sooner if this didnt happen as she was back flighted 3 times due to failing parts of training yet instead she get a load of cash work that one out

Okay guys thats enough. There was a warning given now its locked. This is a very emotive subject and both sides have valid arguments but unless you can keep it above the personal attacks then its done with.

[quote=“Document posted on Sharepoint Today”]MARCHING

Recent media coverage on the compensation awarded to former female recruits at RAF Halton as a result of injuries received whilst ‘marching’ has caused some speculation about the impact on the ACO.

The facts are that the injuries were mainly sustained as a result of forced marches with heavy kit.

Whilst the 30 inch pace laid down in AP 818 is difficult to achieve for males and females who are of short stature, it is most unlikely that this would cause injury to ACO cadets and staff because comparatively little time is spent on drill. If necessary, drill risk assessments should include control measures such as a reduction in the length of the pace where short-statured staff and cadets are involved.

In the case of training for and participation in long-distance Marching events such as Nijmegen, Dodentocht etc, cadets of either gender who struggle to maintain pace because of stature or other physical reasons, should either be positioned at the front of the group so that they can control the pace, be allocated to a slower group or, if necessary, be withdrawn from the training or event itself if it becomes clear that they are struggling to keep up. Under no circumstances are team leaders to encourage any team member to operate at or near the limit of their physical capability for more than a very short period.
[/quote]

Sensible reply to a gathering hysteria amongst the white belted brigade.