According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181631.stm 'Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell has defended the government's decision to appeal against compensation given to two wounded soldiers. He told the BBC that accepting the payouts awarded to them would have been "unfair and disadvantaging" to more seriously injured personnel'. I agree with Labout MP Eric Joyce who said the appeals were profoundly wrong. If you are shot and there are complications it is really hard to argue that the complications are nothing to do with the shooting so no further compensation is required.
It is not clear to me how making reasonable payments to two wounded soldiers is going to be "unfair and disadvantaging" to others. Unless, of course, the government intends to compensate for these two payments which it considers excessive by reducing the payments to more seriously injured personnel. Which actually wouldn't surprise me.
Also not surprisingly, there has already been a bit of an outcry. Simon Weston, the Falklands veteran, has told the BBC that the soldiers' treatment had been appalling. But what I wonder is, is there anyone who actually sides with the government on this one? Anybody else willing to defend the indefensible? Does anybody think that the government is more qualified to determine soldiers' compensation than the tribunals which have been especially set up for that purpose?
Change the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment