is this morally wrong?

[m.durston]

when he was on his first weekend home we both laughed at how much detail the instructors go into when explaining stuff to them. ie the corporal got undressed and done a complete shower demonstration so there would be no arguments about being a filthy scrote lol
the amount of time off they give to the boy soldiers down at winchester is simply amazing, everyone was also encouraged to phone home regularly and have a chat with the padre if things were getting tough.
parents days were also organised so that the parents could see exactly what was happening down there as regards to support, training etc.

 

[firecrest]

editing what I say, as Ive decided as I know nothing but hearsay I wont comment afterall

 

[He' s left the building]

He MAY be 40% to blame because he didn't follow the advice he was given and subsequently got injured? Out of curiosity, do you work for Quantum Claims?

His claim to TA service is completely relevent, and saying that it isn't is a blatant and unashamed example of cherry picking. It demonstrates quite clearly that the kit was adequate, and the person using the kit was at fault.

I say 'may' be partly to blame as I am trying to avoid making rash assumptions unlike others.

Quoting your own military service is irrelevant in this case, otherwise his CO could have simply said that as himslf and nobody else was injured then it must be his fault? This is not the case if he has been given rehab/sickness absence management. If there is no clinical evidence of permanent tissue damage then he is unlikely to be able to claim any further.

It is of note that the armchair generals have piped down since one was outed, I wonder how many others 'military service' is comprised of cadet camps and a few years in the TA...

 

[Humpback]

I did service for six months in the cub scouts so I hope my opinion is valid!

Firecrest's post has the most sense I seen on three pages. I'll repeat that: Firecrest's post contains the most sense.

1. We don't have the full facts, only heresay.

2. We don't have this chaps name, although I should like to know it for when and if the papers persue the issue.

3. We weren't there when his injury occurred, speculation passes the time but does nothing else as we have absolutely no effect on what happens.

4. Sniping at each other over military service or lack of it strikes me as pointless in the long run ( my pack is bigger than yours...; my service is more relevant than his was etc...) and won't alter 1. and 3. above.

Oh and my opinion on the original post, as posted, Yes it is morally wrong.

 

[Draven]

I say 'may' be partly to blame as I am trying to avoid making rash assumptions unlike others.

Quoting your own military service is irrelevant in this case, otherwise his CO could have simply said that as himslf and nobody else was injured then it must be his fault? This is not the case if he has been given rehab/sickness absence management. If there is no clinical evidence of permanent tissue damage then he is unlikely to be able to claim any further.

It is of note that the armchair generals have piped down since one was outed, I wonder how many others 'military service' is comprised of cadet camps and a few years in the TA...

I disagree. What you said implied fairly clearly that you think he's no more than 40% responsible, and may not be at all; that's an insane assumption given all the info we have on the subject.

Unfortunately, things aren't the way they used to be. Employers, COs et cetera who tell it how it is get in trouble; all the PC and Health and Safety nonsense have seen to that, and he would've been made out to be Satan himself if he told the kid it was his fault, if it ever got out and if the kid ever did try and claim. I expect they left the matter open to cover their ***es.

And I fail to see how military service is irrelevent, as I've said already, it shows that the kit is adequate regardless of this kid. If the kit works for the majority of people, and the person it hasn't worked for is known to have not followed the advice given for use of the kit, it's fairly plain to see who or what is at fault. It's not the kit. So far your argument seems pretty specious to me, your points are reasonable but they relate to how the matter is being dealt with rather than what the problem actually was.

For the record, I haven't claimed military service, nor have I served. All I know about the army is from my dad (Nam vet), my brother (Iraq vet in a week or two when he's home!) and what I've read on a US Para forum. While you have raised a reasonable question about one person, you have no right or reason to question the experience of others, though your condescending attitude towards the TA demonstrates that it's probably pointless trying to argue the point.

Humpback - I agree, we don't have the full facts. However, given that we have been told that he was advised to change his socks, we have been told that he did not, we have been told that he was the only one who got injured and we have been told that he found it funny how much detail the DIs went into. Unless M.Durston is lying, and I've not seen anything indicative of that, I don't see what hidden truths could make his intention to claim reasonable. I know you said you think it is morally wrong, I just wanted to address those points and you laid them out right there

Pete

 

[He' s left the building]

I once came down with severe hypothermia on a training exercise in Norfolk. I was put down on FRP sentry at early evening in February with no opportunity to collect a jumper or waterproofs. They then forgot about us, I was unconscious when relieved at 6am.

Was that incident due to:

a. Your poor skills/forethought

b. Poor management/supervision/instruction/training

c. Combination of a. and b.

 

[tobes01]

Not a), I'd been in NBC kit (hence no warm/waterproof clothes), was made to get out of it and leave it, bergen was down the other end of the patrol harbour and we were beasted straight off to stag without a chance to stop. Was it b? I guess so, but it did me no long term harm, and it's something to tell the grandkids about

 

[Opal]

My tuppence worth is this.....

The lad is in the wrong place, he should be in bed with his teddy bear, my lovely nephew has served in the RAF for 35 years, an NCO now, done tours of Iraq and whever our forces are/been in that time etc, etc, been in a dodgy helicopter incident in the Falklands and now is dying from cancer, he is on sick leave but thinks there's a chance he could get back to work...amazing isn't it? I'll be amazed if he's here in three months, this is a real man.

I don't care two hoots about his equipment, I've seen good stuff my nephew has worn in the service, I've never heard him complain once, yet here's a youngun scared of a bit of cold on his peggies and delighting in gettin' off for 6 months on full pay

makes me wanna puke.

 

[firecrest]

I did service for six months in the cub scouts so I hope my opinion is valid!

Firecrest's post has the most sense I seen on three pages. I'll repeat that: Firecrest's post contains the most sense.

1. We don't have the full facts, only heresay.

2. We don't have this chaps name, although I should like to know it for when and if the papers persue the issue.

3. We weren't there when his injury occurred, speculation passes the time but does nothing else as we have absolutely no effect on what happens.

4. Sniping at each other over military service or lack of it strikes me as pointless in the long run ( my pack is bigger than yours...; my service is more relevant than his was etc...) and won't alter 1. and 3. above.

Oh and my opinion on the original post, as posted, Yes it is morally wrong.

cheers humpback. my post has the most sense

in fact ALL my posts are the most sensical heheheh!!!, if I could spell that word

 

[He' s left the building]

... your points are reasonable but they relate to how the matter is being dealt with rather than what the problem actually was.

... I don't see what hidden truths could make his intention to claim reasonable.

How the matter was dealt with is the issue here, not the mechanism of injury. I haven't cherry-picked the points relating to either side of the argument, I have extracted the relevant aspects according to points of law.

I haven't given my personal opinion because it is irrelevant, in the same way as whether I have served or not is irrelevant.

If this type of injury was entirely self-inflicted there is no way that the MOD would be settling with the complainants, there is clearly some degree of negligence involved.

 

[Draven]

How the matter was dealt with is the issue here, not the mechanism of injury. I haven't cherry-picked the points relating to either side of the argument, I have extracted the relevant aspects according to points of law.

I haven't given my personal opinion because it is irrelevant, in the same way as whether I have served or not is irrelevant.

I don't see how the matter it was dealt with is the issue at all. The question was, is it morally wrong for him to claim. Irrespective of what anyone has said or will say, claiming compensation for an injury that was your own fault is morally wrong and as good as theft in my eyes.

Not having served doesn't void an opinion, I agree - however, someone who has served has experience with the kit and with the army and therefore has an invaluable insight that has to be heard to adequately judge whether the kit was up to the job. The people who have served in the same kit in similar conditions have said that the kit is adequate provided that the soldier does what they were supposed to do, which matches the stated fact that his fellow soldiers were not injured. It's ridiculous to call that information irrelevent just because your opinion is set.

If this type of injury was entirely self-inflicted there is no way that the MOD would be settling with the complainants, there is clearly some degree of negligence involved.

Yknow, I recall hearing about a case where a group of teenagers planned to rob a shop. The row of houses by the shop had sheds at the end of the gardens, and their escape plan was to run across the roofs of the sheds. The roof of a shed owned by an elderly woman was run-down and couldn't take the weight, and one fell through, injuring himself. He successfully sued the woman because it was allegedly her responsibility to maintain the shed. Following your logic, there was clearly some degree of negligence involved. Law isn't always just and justice isn't always legal, to deny it is ignorant or naive. Just because someone can sue doesn't make it morally justified.

 

[He' s left the building]

Yknow, I recall hearing about a case where a group of teenagers planned to rob a shop. The row of houses by the shop had sheds at the end of the gardens, and their escape plan was to run across the roofs of the sheds. The roof of a shed owned by an elderly woman was run-down and couldn't take the weight, and one fell through, injuring himself. He successfully sued the woman because it was allegedly her responsibility to maintain the shed.

That old chestnut, the 'Health and Safety it's Gone Mad' defence

Did that incident actually happen?

 

[leon-1]

I was going to do this as individuals, but have sent out the first of many and decided that better just to make a point in here.

Stop Bickering.

Don't take the mickey out of the TA.

You were asked for an opinion and black white is yes or no.

If you feel that you have to insult someone behind their back this is not the place to do it, if you wouldn't say it to their face then don't say it behind their backs.

Keep things on track or the people responsible for taking things off trak will be carded.

I don't give second warnings or chances.

 

[m.durston]

thanks draven for your opinion and pointing out the original question that i asked.
boops i think being derogatory about a few years service in the TA is uncalled for.
as others have pointed out i mentioned my experience as backup to the evidence that the kit issued these days is adequate for the conditions that my g/f's brother experienced.

now if i was bleating on about what is the best boot to wear in the desert or jungle knowing full well i have never been or had experience of such conditions then yes you can call me an armchair general, walt, stab, or keyboard commando as much as you like.

 

[Draven]

Boops - I don't drink except on very rare occasions, and therefore find pubs to be an unpleasant waste of my time, and I don't read any single newspaper - nor do I read the daily mail at all. What happened to not making it personal, anyway?

Leon, I apologise and will step back at this point. If anyone wishes to debate (friendly debate!) the subject further, I will happily respond to a PM.

Pete

 

[spamel]

So, the kid has a non freezing cold injury right? Once you suffer from something like that, you will be more susceptible in future. His discharge is more than likely because he is a complete admin nightmare and will be a problem child throughout his career, his NCO's have picked up on that and this is an easy way to get rid of him.

He will sue the Army, they will pay out. He is so stupid, he will take the first offer and be on his way and in fifty years time he will have other problems related to this incident, but as his claim has been processed and closed he won't be able to claim a penny.

The Army has gotten rid of a soldier who is absolutely useless, paid for his sick leave on a basic wage as he has hasn't passed basic training so not entitled to full pay. Somewhere, a Section of soldiers in the future will all survive instead of dying or being maimed because they have a mong in their midst who didn't listen to pre-tour briefings or actions on and didn't pick up on the combat indicators that resulted in his Section being hit by an IED buried into and/or disguised as a kerbstone on an MSR in some godforsaken country.

The Army will still continue to function without him, if they keep him in he will hinder others' progress and be a drain on the taxpayers, he will undoubtedly be a long term biff and have a laminated biff chit that excuses him from just about everything. Morale will suffer as others continually have to cover up for his mistakes, cover his duties that he cannot perform and try to get him to do the right thing (which is to sign off!), by him being released after six months sick leave on a paltry wage and a 1000 pound payout, the taxpayer is relieved, the future units are relieved and the Army rolls on as if nothing happened.

Morally, what he is doing is wrong, but if it prevents others being killed because they have a problem child who cannot fulfil basic functions or think for himself then it is a small price to pay.

 

[BOD]

I think Spamel sums it up nicely and perhaps we should bring it to an end here as leon says.

Not much more to be gained.

 

[UncleGoo]

So, the kid has a non freezing cold injury right? Once you suffer from something like that, you will be more susceptible in future. His discharge is more than likely because he is a complete admin nightmare and will be a problem child throughout his career, his NCO's have picked up on that and this is an easy way to get rid of him.

He will sue the Army, they will pay out. He is so stupid, he will take the first offer and be on his way and in fifty years time he will have other problems related to this incident, but as his claim has been processed and closed he won't be able to claim a penny.

The Army has gotten rid of a soldier who is absolutely useless, paid for his sick leave on a basic wage as he has hasn't passed basic training so not entitled to full pay. Somewhere, a Section of soldiers in the future will all survive instead of dying or being maimed because they have a mong in their midst who didn't listen to pre-tour briefings or actions on and didn't pick up on the combat indicators that resulted in his Section being hit by an IED buried into and/or disguised as a kerbstone on an MSR in some godforsaken country.

The Army will still continue to function without him, if they keep him in he will hinder others' progress and be a drain on the taxpayers, he will undoubtedly be a long term biff and have a laminated biff chit that excuses him from just about everything. Morale will suffer as others continually have to cover up for his mistakes, cover his duties that he cannot perform and try to get him to do the right thing (which is to sign off!), by him being released after six months sick leave on a paltry wage and a 1000 pound payout, the taxpayer is relieved, the future units are relieved and the Army rolls on as if nothing happened.

Morally, what he is doing is wrong, but if it prevents others being killed because they have a problem child who cannot fulfil basic functions or think for himself then it is a small price to pay.

You could have saved me a bit of reading, if you'd chimed in at the start;-)

 

[tjwuk]

Morally wrong it is. Don't they put you on a charge anymore for things like this? I thought they were there to train, not to pamper.

I don't know all the facts of this case or of current training in the forces. But I would have thought there could be a slight oversight by all involved here. Isn't the idea to build a team? You watch my back etc. So if I was there as a regular at the time and had seen this guy trying to rot his feet off, I would have kicked his butt.

As for the correct kit. As I understand any soldier has the chance to buy their own kit etc. Don't know if this then has to be inspected by a CO or what. The point here is, whatever kit is issued, the correct useage must be taught at some point in training.

Thats more than can be said about events taking place in the UK such as the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. From my experience, kids go out in all weathers ill equiped, walking through mud in trainers, no waterproofs etc. Not taking the correct water rations, and this is allowed to happen!

I know there is a big difference here, but it just shows you how, 'bass-akwards' this country can be sometimes.

 

[leon-1]

Right guys, I think the general consensus of opinion is that it is morally wrong for him to sue over his own poor administration.

So on that note we will close this off.