IF THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL INJURIES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE COMPLICATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets send a few of the fat cat politicians across to Afghanistan, and see how much of a hue and cry they would create if their living 'expenses' were affected.
Its a bloody disgrace. The compensation alone barely amounts to the same level as one MPs expenses claim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/28/veterans-injured-soldiers-compensation
• Ministry wants to overturn tribunal's bigger payouts
• Anger and criticism from veterans and families
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 22.04 BST
- Article history
Diane Dernie, right, criticised MoD efforts to overturn awards to injured soldiers. Her son Ben Parkinson, centre, received £540,000. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA
The Ministry of Defence today brushed aside criticism of its attempt to cut compensation for wounded soldiers, telling the court of appeal that payments should be limited to the soldier's initial injury and not include subsequent disabilities.
Amid uproar from veterans and their families, the ministry argued that compensation must be based on objective criteria and not take into account an individual's particular circumstances.
The MoD is seeking to overturn a pensions appeal tribunal ruling that increased payments to Corporal Anthony Duncan, who was shot in 2005 while on patrol in Iraq, and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams, who fractured his thigh in a military exercise the same year.
Duncan was awarded £9,250, but this was increased to £46,000 by the tribunal. McWilliams's £8,250 award was increased to £28,750. If the ruling stands, they will also both benefit from a guaranteed annual income when they leave the services.
The appeal court heard that although Duncan had undergone 11 operations, took two years to recuperate and one of his legs was shorter than the other, he was now "fully deployable". It emerged that he is fighting on the front line in southern Afghanistan. McWilliams is still in the Royal Marines, the MoD said.
The impact of disability may "vary considerably" depending on the individual, Nathalie Lieven QC, representing Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told the court. The compensation scheme was specifically intended to measure objectively the impact of the injury.
"It was not about the level of disablement suffered at any particular date," she told Lord Justices Keene, Elias, and Carnwath.
Compensation should not be "tailored" to an individual's particular case, she said. If the tribunal had its way, she added, appropriate medical treatment would enable a soldier to claim more money. "That can't be right," Lieven told the court.
The MoD is due to review its compensation scheme next year. A spokeswoman said that it went to court to seek clarity on the scheme's basic principle – that the most seriously injured would receive the highest compensation.
However, with British casualties mounting in Afghanistan, the MoD's appeal has provoked strong and widespread criticism.
Diane Dernie, 51, mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson who was blown up in Helmand in 2006, said the appeal showed the MoD was out of touch. She told the BBC: "It just beggars belief and proves that yet again they don't understand how people feel about our troops."
Dernie said the scheme is designed to make compensation claims quick and easy to process but does not recognise the possible long-term needs – both physical and mental – of injured soldiers.
Her son lost both his legs and suffered 37 other injuries including brain damage when the vehicle he was travelling in was blown up. He was initially awarded £152,150 in compensation, but after a high profile campaign by his mother the government ruled that service personnel would be awarded cash for all the injuries they receive in a single incident – rather than just the three most serious.
Parkinson, 25, had his compensation raised first to £285,000, then £540,000.
Simon Weston, a former Welsh Guardsman who suffered severe burns during the Falklands war, said the government was being "petty". He added: "It seems awful – it is almost car crash politics when they start doing something like this."
Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Church, of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, told Radio 4's Today programme: "This case is obviously appalling timing for the Ministry of Defence. The [current] scheme is an improvement over the old war pension in many ways. It is unique that it compensates people in service ... so that is an advantage." However, he said it was based on a "complex" tariff system that applied "remorseless logic".
Lawyers for Duncan and McWilliams argue that the compensation scheme must take into account the effect of the initial injury on an individual, including medical treatment.
The Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who is chairman of the commons defence committee, said: "If the Ministry of Defence is appealing to keep the costs of looking after injured servicemen as low as possible, it sends the wrong message to people who are wondering whether to join the armed forces."
The hearing continues tomorrow.
In a separate development today, the MoD said 150 British service personnel are to be withdrawn from southern Iraq. The move follows the failure of the Iraqi parliament to ratify an agreement covering their status as trainers for the Iraqi navy. The MoD said the personnel are being withdrawn to Kuwait but will return to Iraq in September if not sooner.
We are the first in the world to do something like this 
