Sick Priorities

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Eh?

They settled out of court.

Eh?
The only reason they settled out of court is because CC thought there was a chance she may lose and NI thought it may be worse in court. They compromised.
I get all the legal issues but not your point. :?:

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

News Int chose to pay that much. They didn't have to. They weren't ordered to by a court.

I trust everyone who thinks that CC didn't deserve the money will be forefeiting a portion of their wages to make sure they never earn more than an 18 year old squaddie?

Exactly. The comparison here between celebrity culture and military social contract is ridiculous.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Eh?

They settled out of court.

Eh?
The only reason they settled out of court is because CC thought there was a chance she may lose and NI thought it may be worse in court. They compromised.
I get all the legal issues but not your point. :?:

It wasn't compensation for hurt feelings.

It was so that she wouldn't take the case to court.

daviesee

bails87 wrote:

I trust everyone who thinks that CC didn't deserve the money will be forefeiting a portion of their wages to make sure they never earn more than an 18 year old squaddie?

Seperate issue but yes, if you can guarantee the squaddies will get 100% of the portion.

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I trust everyone who thinks that CC didn't deserve the money will be forefeiting a portion of their wages to make sure they never earn more than an 18 year old squaddie?

Seperate issue but yes, if you can guarantee the squaddies will get 100% of the portion.

Seriously? You'd really do that?

rick_chasey

I remember having a chat with my friend who did war-studies - about soldiers' pay.

I was asking him why people do it, since, y'know, there's not much in it for soldiers - poor pay, significant risk of serious injury or death, never home, poor compensation if you are seriously hurt.

His response was along the lines of 'if you make it a financially attractive job, you won't get the people with the right kind of mentality - it's about people who want to do a good job as a soldier, not to make cash'

I was kinda surprised, especially coming from him.

Not sure where I sand on it to be honest. I don't particularly like the idea of war generally - and the less people volunteer for it, the less likely it is to happen (in theory). Then again, in practice that's not really how it works, and if people don't volunteer, you might get conscription anyway.

Would be nice if the UK didn't get involved in the nasty business of war so much - for everyone concerned.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

It wasn't compensation for hurt feelings.

It was so that she wouldn't take the case to court.

It was a civil suit. It was about the money. Or is she going to give it all to charity after expenses?

I have said from the start of the whole NI that criminal proceedings should be brought, not enquiries and civil suits.

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

Seperate issue but yes, if you can guarantee the squaddies will get 100% of the portion.

Seriously? You'd really do that?[/quote]
Seriously? Yes.
I can think of a lot of other things that I would rather not pay for (or reduce) out of my taxes.
I don't get the choice of how it is spent.

bails87

They made money off their illegal behaviour, I have no problem with them compensating the victims.

As for being sure that squaddies would get the money....go on then. Take all of the money over £17,265 that you earn. Take it out in cash and take it down to your nearest army base to hand out to them.

daviesee

Stupid wrong post :oops:
Where did the delete button go?
Anyway. Better get on with some work.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It wasn't compensation for hurt feelings.

It was so that she wouldn't take the case to court.

It was a civil suit. It was about the money. Or is she going to give it all to charity after expenses?

I have said from the start of the whole NI that criminal proceedings should be brought, not enquiries and civil suits.

Was it? I thought the whole point of the compensation was that it wouldn't go to trial.

Agreed with the 2nd bit, but I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive? I'd also suggest, given the police involvement, it's a little more complicated behind the scenes.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

The point Spen is making is this.

(1) Person A has their privacy invaded is hurt (emotionally).

(2) Person B has their life physically limited/ruined temporarily or permanently and suffers hurt (emotional and physical).

(3) Person A is a celebrity and brings with them publcity and is paid £600,000 (one would argue that the amount paid out was down for publicity reasons on News Corps part, it looks good, they are saying sorry).

(4) Person B is not a celebrity but while is, without question, the far worse off victim is paid £100,000.

The point is the disparity in what we consider justice and recompense for those that have suffered. Yes Charlotte Chruch and her family have suffered. £600k worth of suffering? Compared to £100k for a person who will likely suffer for the rest of their life?

The point falls down because Milly Dowler family were said to have been offered a £2mil settlement.

The two figures are arrived at through two totally different methods - they are not even both 'compensation'. A valid comparator would be compensation award for, say, a victim of the Potters Bar rail crash.

Clever Pun

notsoblue wrote:

I think the real crime here is that soldiers are being paid LESS than most of us here! They're FIGHTING for our COUNTRY! When was the last time any of us was shot at?! What kind of sick sick nation do we live in that pays good honest brave soldiers who put their lives on the line for the crown less than some civil servant sat at a desk all day?

CyclingBantam

rjsterry wrote:

What have the two figures got to do with each other other than the word compensation? Not comparing apples with apples. The Church case was an out of court settlement with News International, and it was only £300,000 damages - presumably the rest being towards legal costs. The amount of money will be largely based on commercial priorities - the cost to NI of a full court case (it was reported that they were using a team of 25 lawyers for the Church case) and the associated negative publicity would presumably cost NI far more. This is quite different from injury compensation; if you were comparing military injury to, say, an injury sustained in a tube accident, then you might be on to something.

Furthermore, in the Church case, the party paying the compensation is a large multinational - the claim needs to 'hurt' in order for it to have some deterrent effect. What are you suggesting with military compensation? That a team of lawyers be sent to Afghanistan to recover the costs from the Taliban insurgent who made the IED. As the government is footing the bill, the amount of compensation is necessarily limited.

At last (and I'm not getting at previous posters on here). Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that it seems a complete mismatch in amounts etc, you are not comparing like for like and it irks me when people use one against the other.

Rjsterry has said it a lot better than I can so I will shut up now!

clarkey cat

"its disgusting that soldiers get less than X"

has become the new

"wont somebody think of the children"

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

The point is the disparity in what we consider justice and recompense for those that have suffered. Yes Charlotte Chruch and her family have suffered. £600k worth of suffering? Compared to £100k for a person who will likely suffer for the rest of their life?

The point falls down because Milly Dowler family were said to have been offered a £2mil settlement.

The two figures are arrived at through two totally different methods - they are not even both 'compensation'. A valid comparator would be compensation award for, say, a victim of the Potters Bar rail crash.[/quote]
This is why I said the example falls down because Charlotte Church (I would) got £600k and Milly Dowler were offered £2million.

In Spen's example he cites both soldiers and victims of vehicle accidents. For me the disparity was that of celebrity and the publicity they bring. But if it is to run a comparison between compensation/settlements/payments for emotional and physical harm then, yes I would argue there was a larger disparity.

But then in comparions there is also this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... ayout.html

Despite that I think there is disparity between payouts of anykind to celebrities and cases that bring a great deal of publicity. In that a campaign could run, not to change anything but to question our morals and sense of ethics.

I mean honestly why should Charlotte Church and others get in excess of anything but an apology when there are those whose lives have been physically limited and are offered half of what Church settled on.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I mean honestly why should Charlotte Church and others get in excess of anything but an apology when there are those whose lives have been physically limited and are offered half of what Church settled on.

Why should I have a delicious piece of carrot cake with my lunchtime coffee when there are starving children in Africa?
Why should I get a fancy new office chair that gives me the lumbar support I so sorely need while soldiers in Afghanistan have to buy their own flak vests?

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The point is the disparity in what we consider justice and recompense for those that have suffered. Yes Charlotte Chruch and her family have suffered. £600k worth of suffering? Compared to £100k for a person who will likely suffer for the rest of their life?

The point falls down because Milly Dowler family were said to have been offered a £2mil settlement.

The two figures are arrived at through two totally different methods - they are not even both 'compensation'. A valid comparator would be compensation award for, say, a victim of the Potters Bar rail crash.

This is why I said the example falls down because Charlotte Church (I would) got £600k and Milly Dowler were offered £2million.

In Spen's example he cites both soldiers and victims of vehicle accidents. For me the disparity was that of celebrity and the publicity they bring. But if it is to run a comparison between compensation/settlements/payments for emotional and physical harm then, yes I would argue there was a larger disparity.

But then in comparions there is also this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... ayout.html

Despite that I think there is disparity between payouts of anykind to celebrities and cases that bring a great deal of publicity. In that a campaign could run, not to change anything but to question our morals and sense of ethics.

I mean honestly why should Charlotte Church and others get in excess of anything but an apology when there are those whose lives have been physically limited and are offered half of what Church settled on.[/quote]

Why are the two even connected? It's not as though if NI paid CC less, then the government would magically be able to afford to pay out more to injured soldiers. You may as well argue that it's unfair that the average house in London costs more than an injured soldier receives. It would be nice if injured soldiers could be better supported, but this has f*** all to do with NI, Charlotte Church or even Milly Dowler's parents.

If you are just arguing that CC's settlement was too high, then why should she be entitled to less from NI, just because she was better off than some of the other victims of phone hacking?

pangolin

Reading this has inspired me to send the rest of my (half eaten) bagel to Africa.

I urge all of you to do the same. Though some of you may need to send a portion to Charlotte Church so things are even. Do soldiers eat bagels?? This is complicated.

notsoblue

pangolin wrote:

Reading this has inspired me to send the rest of my (half eaten) bagel to Africa.

I urge all of you to do the same. Though some of you may need to send a portion to Charlotte Church so things are even. Do soldiers eat bagels?? This is complicated.

Far too complicated. I suggest you stop asking questions and just donate to Help For Heroes.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

pangolin wrote:

Reading this has inspired me to send the rest of my (half eaten) bagel to Africa.

I urge all of you to do the same. Though some of you may need to send a portion to Charlotte Church so things are even. Do soldiers eat bagels?? This is complicated.

Far too complicated. I suggest you stop asking questions and just donate to Help For Heroes.

Sod that. Time is worth more.

Volunteer for the army to help the boys, for free.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I mean honestly why should Charlotte Church and others get in excess of anything but an apology when there are those whose lives have been physically limited and are offered half of what Church settled on.

Why should I have a delicious piece of carrot cake with my lunchtime coffee when there are starving children in Africa?
Why should I get a fancy new office chair that gives me the lumbar support I so sorely need while soldiers in Afghanistan have to buy their own flak vests?

Yes, but awareness of the above point you mockingly raise is it's own self regulating set of principles and values. I don't need a new 40inch TV when I've got a perfectly working 26inch one. I don't need a 2 year old car when I've got a perfectly working 5/6 year old one. And I don't need to keep up with the Jones' next door because I'm aware that there are other people in the World with far less that get by just fine so I'm thankful for what I've got, me and mine.

You're talking to a guy whose family emigrated from Jamaica what others further afield have/haven't got means something and helps regulate this cultural greed that plagues my generation.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

pangolin wrote:

Reading this has inspired me to send the rest of my (half eaten) bagel to Africa.

I urge all of you to do the same. Though some of you may need to send a portion to Charlotte Church so things are even. Do soldiers eat bagels?? This is complicated.

Far too complicated. I suggest you stop asking questions and just donate to Help For Heroes.

Sod that. Time is worth more.

Volunteer for the army to help the boys, for free.

Whoa there, calm down. Don't do anything too rash. Do you know how dangerous it is being in the army? I'd rather just do charity rides and update my facebook status about it constantly. That way some of the praise the military gets spills on to me, and I don't get shot.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Why are the two even connected? It's not as though if NI paid CC less, then the government would magically be able to afford to pay out more to injured soldiers.

That's why I tried to avoid direct comparisons to soldiers and focused on the disparity in ethical values between legal/libel damages that have a measure of publicity and compensation.

pangolin

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't need a new 40inch TV when I've got a perfectly working 26inch one. I don't need a 2 year old car when I've got a perfectly working 5/6 year old one. And I don't need to keep up with the Jones' next door because I'm aware that there are other people in the World with far less that get by just fine so I'm thankful for what I've got, me and mine.

I'd quite like to replace my perfectly working best bike though

FTFY

woodford2barbican

Surprised that no one has mentioned that soldiers choose to join up.

There are obvious consequences to being a soldier - causing and suffering death and dismemberment - these were the reaons that I did not pursue a career in the army.

Coward or pragmatist? Both.

Blacktemplar

woodford2barbican wrote:

Surprised that no one has mentioned that soldiers choose to join up.

But also worth considering that many who 'choose' to do so come from deprived areas, have limited education and as a consequence little in the way of employment opportunities. There is also the element of tradition; often new generations of a family follow their parent's 'trade' - again true in certain segments of society. It's why places like Glasgow and Liverpool have long been fertile recruiting grounds for the Infantry, for example.

rjsterry

I think a contribution from NGale or Cmdr Jake might be valuable here.

Blacktemplar

rjsterry wrote:

I think a contribution from NGale or Cmdr Jake might be valuable here.

+1

My daughter's boyfriend has just joined the RAF at 18 in a ground-support role. His father was a pilot, his sister, his brother and most of the rest of his family have served as well. It was always assumed he'd just 'join up'. He's a nice lad, but comes from a relatively deprived part of Central Scotland, and ain't the sharpest tool in the box, educationally-speaking at least. The best he could do job-wise after leaving school and before getting signed up was serving burgers in MacDonalds. You can understand why 16-18 year olds with limited prospects would see the Army as an attractive option, particularly given the Forces' "lifestyle" advertising.

Nothing new, Billy Connolly sang about it the best part of forty years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsSprdnGmtc

When you're 16 you think you're invincible, and for the Modern Warfare Generation, carrying a gun in Afghanistan must seem glamorous and exciting. I'm sure not many seriously consider the potential for life-changing injury or post-traumatic stress.

rick_chasey

Blacktemplar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think a contribution from NGale or Cmdr Jake might be valuable here.

+1

My daughter's boyfriend has just joined the RAF at 18 in a ground-support role. His father was a pilot, his sister, his brother and most of the rest of his family have served as well. It was always assumed he'd just 'join up'. He's a nice lad, but comes from a relatively deprived part of Central Scotland, and ain't the sharpest tool in the box, educationally-speaking at least. The best he could do job-wise after leaving school and before getting signed up was serving burgers in MacDonalds. You can understand why 16-18 year olds with limited prospects would see the Army as an attractive option, particularly given the Forces' "lifestyle" advertising.

Nothing new, Billy Connolly sang about it the best part of forty years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsSprdnGmtc



When you're 16 you think you're invincible, and for the Modern Warfare Generation, carrying a gun in Afghanistan must seem glamorous and exciting. I'm sure not many seriously consider the potential for life-changing injury or post-traumatic stress.

Give some credit to your daughter's bf. He probably knows call of duty is not really like the real thing!