Female RAF recruits awarded more compensation for marching injuries than soldiers with gunshot wound
37 replies, posted
[quote= BBC news]Three female RAF recruits have been awarded compensation for injuries reportedly suffered while marching alongside male colleagues.
They claimed parading alongside taller male recruits caused them to over-stride and develop spinal and pelvic injuries, the Mail on Sunday reported.
The paper said they were each awarded £100,000 by the Ministry of Defence. [/quote]
I think this is absolute bullshit, and one of the reasons why physical entry requirements into the armed forces shouldn't be lower for women
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544] Source- BBC News [/url]
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html] Daily mail- "The women received more than soldiers who suffered wounds in combat"[/url]
Give them tall shoes.
Ah yes, equal rights for men and women.
[sp] Someone had to start this, right ? [/sp]
what is it with people who comment on Daily Mail articles and the phrase 'gone mad'
'world gone mad'
'political correctness gone mad'
stop
To be honest "spinal and pelvic injuries" can be something far more serious that having a clean and well treated bullet wound.
Depending of what exactly happened to them and what the treatment and consequences are, it might be right to compensate them more.
Remember, these compensations aren't "oh you got hurt, here have money to feel better", it's meant to let you deal with the problem directly and is mainly related to therapies and consequences with your future performance.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42966697]To be honest "spinal and pelvic injuries" can be something far more serious that having a clean and well treated bullet wound.
Depending of what exactly happened to them and what the treatment and consequences are, it might be right to compensate them more.
Remember, these compensations aren't "oh you got hurt, here have money to feel better", it's meant to let you deal with the problem directly and is mainly related to therapies and consequences with your future performance.[/QUOTE]
They all made a full recovery. And I don't know what a clean bullet wound is, if it hits your body you're gonna have fucked up organs, if it hits limbs there is a high possibility of very badly broken bones, destroyed muscle tissue and chances of hitting something like the femoral artery. Unless it hits your arse or doesn't actually fully hit you (more like skims past), you're gonna be in serious pain and recovering for a while.
My argument is that if they shouldn't be let in if this happens, if it was a man of the same height would he be let in? Surely he would suffer the same problems?
Posting this for reference;
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/23/article-2512412-1999AE8400000578-403_634x944.jpg[/img]
I don't know if I'm just being stupid but I sort of understand this.
Your employer should do everything possible to keep you safe, and in this case orders of the employer caused injury.
If you are in the army and you get shot fair and square, of course the army should provide all the support required, but I don't think you really need compensation for that.
If someone was injured in combat due to equipment failure or improper procedures you could be sure the compensation would be much higher.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;42966736]They all made a full recovery. And I don't know what a clean bullet wound is, if it hits your body you're gonna have fucked up organs, if it hits limbs there is a high possibility of very badly broken bones, destroyed muscle tissue and chances of hitting something like the femoral artery. Unless it hits your arse or doesn't actually fully hit you (more like skims past), you're gonna be in serious pain and recovering for a while.
My argument is that if they shouldn't be let in if this happens, if it was a man of the same height would he be let in? Surely he would suffer the same problems?[/QUOTE]
Of course there's a probability but you aren't treated based on what could have happened but what actually happened. I am saying that "got shot" is not a good metric of "was this hurt" because the degree of actual consequences can vary a lot.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
And, while I frankly am not going to do my own research, that table sounds like a heap of bullshit and I wouldn't believe it for a second just because daily mail printed it.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42966752]
And, while I frankly am not going to do my own research, that table sounds like a heap of bullshit and I wouldn't believe it for a second just because daily mail printed it.[/QUOTE]
As much as they are a shit newspaper, I doubt they've fudged the numbers on this chart.
[url=http://www.veterans-uk.info/pensions/comp_calculated.html] This[/url] website seems pretty concordant with it.
And look at [url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95E89444-6AC6-415A-B6AE-D7A96FED3AD1/0/afcs_tariff151208.pdf]this[/url] from the MOD's archive if you don't believe me, see last page for summary of payments.
According to that document, the women, who made a full recovery, got almost £70,000 more than someone who suffers a permanent mental disorder causing functional limitations and restrictions
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42966697]To be honest "spinal and pelvic injuries" can be something far more serious that having a clean and well treated bullet wound.
Depending of what exactly happened to them and what the treatment and consequences are, it might be right to compensate them more.
Remember, these compensations aren't "oh you got hurt, here have money to feel better", it's meant to let you deal with the problem directly and is mainly related to therapies and consequences with your future performance.[/QUOTE]
The amount of mental gymnastics you have to do to suggest that injuries obtained from marching (which realistically would be tissue inflammation at best) are more serious than a gunshot wound is amusing.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=rhx123;42966748]I don't know if I'm just being stupid but I sort of understand this.
Your employer should do everything possible to keep you safe, and in this case orders of the employer caused injury.
If you are in the army and you get shot fair and square, of course the army should provide all the support required, but I don't think you really need compensation for that.
If someone was injured in combat due to equipment failure or improper procedures you could be sure the compensation would be much higher.[/QUOTE]
By this logic they should not be compensated for any physical injury because hey, you shouldve expected it when you signed the dotted line. Especially for marching an activity all units in the military have to engage in.
The thing is, you're forced to march.
Where as you're not forced to get shot.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;42967113]By this logic they should not be compensated for any physical injury because hey, you shouldve expected it when you signed the dotted line. Especially for marching an activity all units in the military have to engage in.[/QUOTE]
No one signs up expecting your employers to force you to do something that is going to cause lasting and permanent damage.
Its different from the risk of injury when fighting someone else.
If they develop these injuries just from marching they are seriously unfit for service.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967136]The thing is, you're forced to march.
Where as you're not forced to get shot.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
No one signs up expecting your employers to force you to do something that is going to cause lasting and permanent damage.
Its different from the risk of injury when fighting someone else.[/QUOTE]
well all soldiers are required to fight if necessary
but i dunno man £70,000 more than soldiers that got shot seems a little unfair imo
[QUOTE=goldenbuttocks;42967176]well all soldiers are required to fight if necessary
but i dunno man £70,000 more than soldiers that got shot seems a little unfair imo[/QUOTE]
Well unless its there employers who are physically lining up their own soldiers and shooting them to give them a taste of what it feels like I don't think you can compare forced work related injuries to combat injuries.
I never commented on how fair I felt the amount of money was.
Blood pressure is 140 over 90 after reading some of these posts.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;42967226]Blood pressure is 140 over 90 after reading some of these posts.[/QUOTE]
go claim some compensation for it
I doubt that ANYONE in their right mindset would sign up for the military not expecting to get hurt. It's not like it's moving boxes in a department store this is the defense force of your country. If they couldn't take marching I'd doubt that they'd have a good time in the field.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;42967239]I doubt that ANYONE in their right mindset would sign up for the military not expecting to get hurt. It's not like it's moving boxes in a department store this is the defense force of your country. If they couldn't take marching I'd doubt that they'd have a good time in the field.[/QUOTE]
Injuries that reduce life expectancy of 5 years are rewarded up to £90,000. Regardless of how you got them.
It just depends if you think spinal injuries these people got qualify for that.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967215]Well unless its there employers who are physically lining up their own soldiers and shooting them to give them a taste of what it feels like I don't think you can compare forced work related injuries to combat injuries.
I never commented on how fair I felt the amount of money was.[/QUOTE]
If you can't take marching, don't join the fucking military? It's like if someone was "forced" to do a run as part as Physical Training and twisted their ankle.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967252]Injuries that reduce life expectancy of 5 years are rewarded up to £90,000. Regardless of how you got them.
It just depends if you think spinal injuries these people got qualify for that.[/QUOTE]
They made a full recovery. I don't see how that can take 5 years off your life.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42967273]Problems like this exist across the pond too. There's a pretty hefty argument going on right now about why a 22 year old male has to run a 13 min. 1.5 miles, whereas a female can run a 20 min 1.5 miles and pass their physical testing with flying colors.[/QUOTE]
Gym class girls only needed 8 levels instead of 10. Half skipped.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;42967257] They made a full recovery. I don't see how that can take 5 years off your life.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't believe anything the Daily Mail says when it comes to award amounts and actual case details.
They flat out openly lie often.
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/14/european-court-human-rights-attacks-uk-newspapers[/url]
[quote]"For example, one of the articles suggested that Mustafa Abdi 'pocketed £7,237', whereas in reality he was awarded €1,500 [£1,280] in compensation. It is also indicated that applicant Douglas Vinter was 'awarded £34,500', although he was accorded no compensation whatsoever, the sum cited relating solely to costs and expenses."[/quote]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967307]I wouldn't believe anything the Daily Mail says when it comes to award amounts and actual case details.
They flat out openly lie often.
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/14/european-court-human-rights-attacks-uk-newspapers[/url][/QUOTE]
It said so in the BBC article I linked?
Scrap that it says so in The Independent's article not BBC
[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mod-pays-out-100000-to-female-raf-recruits-injured-from-marching-in-step-with-the-men-8960468.html]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;42967320]It said so in the BBC article I linked?
Scrap that it says so in The Independant's article not BBC[/QUOTE]
Says they never recovered
[quote]but have been compensated for nine years of lost earnings and pension perks.[/quote]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967136]The thing is, you're forced to march.
Where as you're not forced to get shot.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
No one signs up expecting your employers to force you to do something that is going to cause lasting and permanent damage.
Its different from the risk of injury when fighting someone else.[/QUOTE]
Wtf this is absurd
You're as much forced to march as you are forced to get shot. If you refuse to go into combat when you're called upon you will lose your job. If you refuse to march when you're instructed to, you will lose your job.
Any physical activity has a risk.
This is quite blatantly, a money grab. Its absurd to think they have suffered, all 3 of them, lifespan reducing injuries from having to match stride with taller members.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;42967348]This is quite blatantly, a money grab. Its absurd to think they have suffered, all 3 of them, lifespan reducing injuries from having to match stride with taller members.[/QUOTE]
Well they've been unable to work for 9 years sooo £10,000 a year isn't a huge amount really.
[QUOTE]the recruits claimed that carrying the same heavy packs as males had also contributed to their injuries[/QUOTE]
this is rich
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967361]Well they've been unable to work for 9 years sooo £10,000 a year isn't a huge amount really.[/QUOTE]
where is it explicitly claimed that they have not been able to work for 9 years as a result of their injuries?
They have been compensated for a proposed 9 years of lost earnings. This does not explicitly state they have been out of work for 9 years as a result of their injuries.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967136]The thing is, you're forced to march.
Where as you're not forced to get shot.
[editline]24th November 2013[/editline]
No one signs up expecting your employers to force you to do something that is going to cause lasting and permanent damage.
Its different from the risk of injury when fighting someone else.[/QUOTE]
Well you aren't forced to get hit by a car but it still happens right?
[QUOTE=xxncxx;42967424]Well you aren't forced to get hit by a car but it still happens right?[/QUOTE]
Yeah and you still get compensation.
So whats your point?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42967438]Yeah and you still get compensation.
So whats your point?[/QUOTE]
And you get compensation for getting shot so I don't see what your point is either.
Much less than getting injured from a petty task, nonetheless.
Hint, if you still can't figure it out: Why should it be okay for someone to get less compensation for an injury just because they weren't "forced"?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.