This government has no shame

[Vladd67]

We are not a decent society if brave men like Ben need to beg for handouts | the Mail on Sunday

[dormouse]

I'm afraid we are not a decent society.

It is absurd and disgusting that a typing injury should attract more compensation than this

Whether or not you belive we should have been involved in this war to begin with, the way our armed forces are treated is a disgrace.

[Curt Chiarelli]

Every country does this. They use up their young people like cheap disposable goods in the pursuit of empire. Stories like this (and we have many more of their kind here in the States) sicken me.

"Boys are the cash of war. Whoever said we're not free-spenders doesn't know our likes."

John Ciardi

[Rosemary]

That is appalling! That a young soldier should be injured so badly and yet only given such a small amount on which to build his future on. Even ongoing treatment will cost a lot of money. To treat him in this mean manner is disgusting. A pity those that sit behind the desks don't have to do time in the Services but if they have then they didn't learn very much from it!

[mosaix]

I agree that the case, as described, does appear shocking.

But let's not forget, folks that this is an article by Max Hastings (in a Freudian slip I missed out the 's' momentarily) in the Mail on Sunday. A right-wing hack writing for a right-wing rag. Note that he just can't resist his usual dig at teachers and prison inmates can he?

'The amount is paltry, by comparison with the sums given to "traumatised" teachers, mistreated jail inmates and - most notoriously - the £484,000 awarded to an RAF typist who allegedly suffered repetitive strain injury to her thumb.'

The double quotes around "traumatised" implying fraudulent activity and the use of the word 'allegedly' regarding a case already proven, again implying fraud. Oh yes our Max knows how to get the hackles rising alright. I bet he really had to struggle to stop himself putting the double quotes around 'mistreated'.

It's this kind of journalist and this kind of newspaper that urge our governments to send our soldiers abroad to kill, be killed and have their legs blown off in the first place. And then 'use' the resulting casualties not as a condemnation of war but to have a go at the government and have a side swipe at the ever-so-easy targets of teachers and prison inmates. Just the kind of stuff Mail readers love to get stuck into over their Sunday breakfasts.

Never, ever forget that the Mail group of newspapers supported Nazism and Fascism before the Second World War. Their owner, Lord Rothermere was friendly with both Hitler and Mussolini. How the group had the bare faced gall to continue publishing after the war is beyond me.

Before drawing any conclusions I would prefer to wait and see what the Ministry of Defence have to say on the issue, not to mention how the story is treated by a 'decent' newspaper.

End of rant.

[Vladd67]

Ok sorry to sully your computer with the mail here are two decent newspapers
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2903538.ece
Disabled soldier's pay-out victory | UK News | The Observer
Mother takes on the MoD over £152,000 'insult' to son maimed in Afghanistan | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[mosaix]

Thanks for the extra links Vladd.

The two that I can get to work, I think, serve to prove my point. Calm, sensible reporting of a difficult issue. And, as I suspected would be the case, a review of compensation by the MOD.

[dormouse]

and this kind of newspaper that urge our governments to send our soldiers abroad to kill, be killed

The Guardian was very keen on the idea of bombing Serbians; and did a lot to promote the Soviet Union of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin as some kind of utopia....
But things have changed, and nowadays many "green" obsessed Guardian readers would prefer to allow very large numbers of potential enemy personnel into Britain, and thereby reduce the "carbon footprint" of travelling to fight them at a later date.

Btw, there are no "decent" big newspapers, they are all biased and bigoted according to who owns them. It rather depends on which way they are slanted and your personal preference.... but basically, all of them are politically correct - including the Daily Mail, which just disguises it more.

[mosaix]

The terms 'Daily Mail' and 'politically correct' are mutually exclusive.

If they are disguising it they're doing a bl**dy good job.

[pyan]

I tried to read the Mail once - couldn't actually find any news in it!

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by pyan

I tried to read the Mail once - couldn't actually find any news in it!

Isn't that the good news?

[Locksmith]

Comment is free: Life on Daily Mail Island

This is quite amusing (but keep in mind it's tongue in cheek and in the Grauniad - not exactly eye-to-eye with the Mail).

[mosaix]

"The ideal Daily Mail story," a former Mail journalist told me, "should leave you hating someone or something" - this, at least, was the advice he was given by his sub-editor at the time. As a mission statement, it shows remarkable consistency. The Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe, is said to have ascribed the paper's success to the fact that it provided its readers with a "daily hate", and critics have long acknowledge this to be the case. "Democracy knows you as the poisoner of the streams of human intercourse, the fomenter of war, the preacher of hate, the unscrupulous enemy of a peaceful human society," wrote the author of A Letter to Lord Northcliffe in 1914, adding for good measure that he was "the most sinister influence that ever corrupted the soul of English journalism".

Then there was the infamous rallying cry for the British Union of Fascists, headlined "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" and penned by Lord Rothermere himself, which cemented the impression that the Mail's politics are fundamentally nasty. Certainly, it casts the paper's current stance on migrants in a lurid light.

This says it all.

[Briareus Delta]

I'm anxious that the original topic for this thread - This Government Has No Shame, posted by Vladd - is not lost. It doesn't really matter how it's reported, or what the political bias of the journalist is. This Government manages to demonstrate an almost callous disregard for troops who are injured and the families of those killed in action. As clearly demonstrated by the fact that not one Government minister (not even a junior nobody) shows up at the airfield to meet the coffins returning from Iraq. This is unprecedented and just gives the impression that they are either too embarrassed to face the grieving relatives or just don't care that much. Either of which is unacceptable.

[JDP]

The title of this thread seems like something of an oxymoron to me because:

Government = Politicians + Their Lackeys

When have either of these species demonstrated genuine shame about anything? They all tend to be self-serving bottom-feeders and, as far as I understand, shame was bred out of them several millenia ago for the darwinian benefit of upping their fakeness quota and cutting loose that pesky conscience (perhaps an evolutionary biologist on the forum could verify this?).

Bring back an actively ruling monarchy, I say. At least that way, there's a slight chance (however remote - genetic roulette) that the person governing us won't be a self-serving toad. Inbred, perhaps, and probably incompetent, but is that so different from what most countries have got anyway (yep, George, I'm looking at you)? If the person in charge was there by divine right, rather than having sold their soul, perhaps they'd be a bit less twisted. I reckon the ancient egyptians had it right.

Ho hum, ranting and waffling now. Sorry, I know it's a serious subject; just got carried away... **removes tongue from cheek and shuts the hell up**