Once it became generally known that the MoD operates a sliding scale of compensation for the loss of different limbs on the battlefield, £48,875 per eye for instance, it was inevitable that any extra-battlefield compensation to soldiers would be converted into the currency of missing body parts.

 

The new payout of £187,000 for Lance Bombardier Kerry Fletcher, the lesbian soldier who endured sexual harassment by a sergeant, including a maximum £30,000 for her hurt feelings, provoked instant calculations on the limb exchange rate, followed by a good deal of resentful comment. Did anything more than sympathetic guesswork go into working out that Fletcher's losses amounted to roughly four eyes? Or was it more systematic?

 

For example, Fletcher's tribunal might have taken the 1995 cost of being called an 'Irish prat' (£15,000), factored in the personal aspect of her own discrimination, allowed for inflation and the change in public attitudes towards sexual diversity, multiplied by, say, five, for luck - and then remembered, at the last minute, that an RAF typist recently won damages of £484,000 after injuring a thumb.

 

Look at it like that and maybe Lance-Bombardier Fletcher, who was persecuted to the point that she gave up her army career, deserved at least another foot's worth. Or would that come too close to the £250,000 awarded, not long ago, to a transsexual colleague who was ordered to wear a man's uniform?

 

See whole article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...xual-harassment

Is it right for compensation payouts be higher for hurt feelings rather than physical injuries?

I was reading about this the other day and was disgusted that she should get more than soldiers who've been permanently physically disabled. Where on earth is the common sense in this award?

I would say that someone who has been persecuted to the point where they have had to give up their career deserves a hefty award, Its called abuse, and in other cases abusers face jail. An employer has to insure their employees are not put into these situations, which is not part of the job, however physical damage is part of the risk of joining the army, and any one who joins it is aware of it.

 

Peoples rights have to be respected and this woman had rights which were not, therefore she deserves this award

Let's not forget this:

 

A man who lost both his legs, an eye and his spleen in the July 7 attacks: £181,000 (or similar).

Those two Muslim women who were harrassed: £10 million.

 

Tell me where the justice in that is.

Edited December 2, 200816 yr by DitzyNizzy

I would say that someone who has been persecuted to the point where they have had to give up their career deserves a hefty award, Its called abuse, and in other cases abusers face jail. An employer has to insure their employees are not put into these situations, which is not part of the job, however physical damage is part of the risk of joining the army, and any one who joins it is aware of it.

 

Peoples rights have to be respected and this woman had rights which were not, therefore she deserves this award

 

I agree with this

 

If you join the forces you are aware that you might go into combat and be seriously injured or killed, it is part of the job, you don't go into the job expecting to be harassed and victimised so this person deserves the award, the one who lost his limb knew the risks when he signed up she didn't

Let's not forget this:

 

A man who lost both his legs, an eye and his spleen in the July 7 attacks: £181,000 (or similar).

Those two Muslim women who were harrassed: £10 million.

 

Tell me where the justice in that is.

It really is really stupid. Money and hurt feelings/lost limbs cannot be measured on the same scale. You can't convert hurt feelings into an amount of money very well, it just doesn't work.

I don't think soldiers injured in battle should be compensated at all, they are not conscripts they are willingly signing up for the forces knowing that they could well get injured or killed so I don't think they should be compensated if they are injured or killed unless it was because of negligence such as faulty equipment. Soldiers injured in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever should get army pensions but 6 figure payouts for doing a very risky job willingly ? no

 

 

I don't think soldiers injured in battle should be compensated at all, they are not conscripts they are willingly signing up for the forces knowing that they could well get injured or killed so I don't think they should be compensated if they are injured or killed unless it was because of negligence such as faulty equipment. Soldiers injured in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever should get army pensions but 6 figure payouts for doing a very risky job willingly ? no

 

i was going to disagree with you until you said that . if they are willing to risk life and limb then the country should look after them, otherwise no one would join and we would be defenceless.

I don't think soldiers injured in battle should be compensated at all, they are not conscripts they are willingly signing up for the forces knowing that they could well get injured or killed so I don't think they should be compensated if they are injured or killed unless it was because of negligence such as faulty equipment. Soldiers injured in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever should get army pensions but 6 figure payouts for doing a very risky job willingly ? no

 

Fair enough but if the entire war is based on deceit and lies, isn't that negligence in its ultimate form?

Fair enough but if the entire war is based on deceit and lies, isn't that negligence in its ultimate form?

 

:yahoo: :lol: excellant reply!

Fair enough but if the entire war is based on deceit and lies, isn't that negligence in its ultimate form?

 

Perhaps it is, but then perhaps soldiers have a duty under international law to refuse to serve, especially after the Nurenberg trials established this, although the authorities in this country have coluded to make sure anybody refusing under this law is dealt with severly....yet another infringement on civil liberties

Fair enough but if the entire war is based on deceit and lies, isn't that negligence in its ultimate form?

 

Agree 100%..... Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are there under the deceit and lies of Govt.... Oh, and there's the "small" matter of totally inadequate and malfunctioning equipment which, again, puts their lives at totally unnecessary risk..... :rolleyes:

 

So, bad enough to be lied to, even worse that you dont even get the proper tools for the job....

 

Inexcusable..... Soldiers should be suing the govt en masse for BILLIONS...... Maybe then that would make these fukkin' politicians think twice before lying to the country and these brave young men and women who demand nothing more than to be given a proper, truthful reason as to why they are putting life and limb at risk and not a bunch of cr@p about "WMDs" and whatnot.....

As to the question itself... Well, it rather depends on the nature of the "injured feelings" dunnit....? I would say that being banged-up in prison for something you didn't do for 10 or 20 years is a bit more than just "injured feelings" tbh.... :rolleyes: