Defence forces to get 28.5% pay rise

Status
Not open for further replies.
cremeegg said:
Ah, No ! Thats not what happened.
Click to expand...

Eh, actually it was.
Without wanting to re-hash the whole saga, I suspect your position is of the flood of subsequent claims made on foot of a High Court judgement relating to minor hearing loss which I believe is not objectively measurable?
But the initial case(s) as I recall were for loss of hearing.
In the end, if someone feels they have suffered an injury through negligence of another party they are fully entitled to pursue compensation.
Let the courts decide thereafter.
Id be interested in hearing how much you had to pay out? I didn't pay one cent.
 
cremeegg said:
It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.
Click to expand...

And what have you ever done for your country that entitles you to criticise them? They are who are actually willing to die for the country and the likes of you and are just as entitled as one else to claim compensation if the court allows it.
 
For 2017:

Compensation paid to soldiers €1.7m
Compensation per soldier employed €185
Comp as a % of total pay 0.4%

Compensation paid to Gardai €6.5m
Compensation per Garda employed €479
Comp as a % of total pay 0.6%

Compensation paid to Prison Officers €1.9m
Comp per PO employed €596
Comp as a % of total pay 0.82%

Cost of compensation paid to prisoners on remand (PoR) €1.5m
Comp per PoR €407

CAG Annual report 2017: Vote 20 Garda, Vote 21 Prisons, Vote 36 Defence
 
Jim2007 said:
And what have you ever done for your country that entitles you to criticise them? They are who are actually willing to die for the country and the likes of you and are just as entitled as one else to claim compensation if the court allows it.
Click to expand...

Well calling out these obscene greedy chancers is a start
 

The Army deafness scam was not perpetrated in 2017. So I don’t see what 2017 figures have to do with anything. But I think you know this and are deliberately trying to mislead.
 
TheBigShort said:
I suspect your position is...
Click to expand...

As usual you know everyone’s position better than they do themselves.

My position is as set out in the Dail by Michael Smith Minister for Defence at the time.

I will attempt to summarize but please go to the source to see for your self. The link to the Dail record is given post 6 of this thread.

They were given ear protection, they suffered no hearing loss. They were paid tens of thousands each in compensation. Amounting to a bill to the taxpayer in the hundreds of millions.
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
Id be interested in hearing how much you had to pay out? I didn't pay one cent.
Click to expand...

Well I could look over my tax returns for the years in question if I wanted to know the exact amount.

If you didn’t pay tax at the time, for whatever reason, then you may have avoided making any direct contribution to the scammers. However even non taxpayers suffered from the diversion of public funds to these chancers.
 
cremeegg said:
Well calling out these obscene greedy chancers is a start
Click to expand...

That you brought this topic back to life on foot of an article that relates to alleged serious and tragic consequences of the administration of medicine, deemed necessary during the course of their duties, to label these soldiers "obscene greedy chancers" only leaves me to conclude that you are an obscene sick puppy.

cremeegg said:
The Army deafness scam was not perpetrated in 2017. So I don’t see what 2017 figures have to do with anything. But I think you know this and are deliberately trying to mislead.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who brought this topic back linked to events not related to army deafness claims.

cremeegg said:
As usual you know everyone’s position better than they do themselves.
Click to expand...

I said "I suspect". That is, I believe or consider to be, without confirmation of the truth or facts.
But im all ears to let me know that you think differently.

cremeegg said:
They were given ear protection, they suffered no hearing loss. They were paid tens of thousands each in compensation. Amounting to a bill to the taxpayer in the hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...

This is again a total misrepresentation. The initial claims were made on foot claims for loss of hearing. Subsequent claims were made on tinnitus (ringing in the ear) which I understand is difficult if not impossible to measure accurately. Meaning it is not easily determined if someone is, or is not suffering, from the condition.
Without wanting to rehash the whole episode, it was established that protective hearing equipment was available but it is disputed the responsibility of administering it was effective or ineffective (not much point in buying protective equipment if no-one takes responsibility to make sure it is used).
If you need anymore read the legal argument.

But back to your latest gripe - the administration of an anti-malarial drug called Lariam. What do you know about it? If anything at all?

cremeegg said:
The tax payers were the only victims in this whole con.
Click to expand...

Soldiers are taxpayers too. What evidence have you got that it was a con? And how does that relate to this recent issue?

cremeegg said:
Well I could look over my tax returns for the years in question if I wanted to know the exact amount.
Click to expand...

What have your tax returns got to do with it? You didn't hand over a single extra cent in tax because of this.
As much as you would like to think that your taxes pay for everything (a common gripe on this site), your individual tax contributions pay for diddly-squat. Maybe a half years salary of one school teacher? Or a years supply of toilet roll for a school?
You certainly didn't pay anything for the army deafness claims.
The total cost was circa €300m and was paid out over ten years, or €30m a year. Considering the tax base of workers, employers, VAT, CT, CGT etc, we are probably talking about 3million tax contributors. So it probably 'cost' about €10 a year, or €0.19c per week on average. But between 1992 and 2002 the country underwent the biggest tax reform ever where taxes on income were being cut, FDI was creating jobs etc, the €300m paid out to soldiers and in legal fees probably ended up in consumption, investments, savings etc. This helping to stimulate the economy further in a time of increasing confidence.
So its actually possible, although it was not on the government agenda, that €300m was simply re-directed into an area that the government didn't account for. But in doing so its possible it helped stimulate the economy by providing much need spending power to low-income workers, indirectly boosting demand and creating jobs.

Its possible you owe the soldiers for taking a stand and pointing out a wrong.
 
TheBigShort said:
you are an obscene sick puppy.
Click to expand...

Cheers.

TheBigShort said:
your individual tax contributions pay for diddly-squat.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Again !

TheBigShort said:
The total cost was circa €300m
Click to expand...

So in fact right up there with ppars (just €200m) and the other great public service black holes.

TheBigShort said:
But back to your latest gripe - the administration of an anti-malarial drug called Lariam. What do you know about it? If anything at all?
Click to expand...

Good question.

Lariam was prescribed, ordered, as a malaria preventative, for Irish soldiers, traveling to affected areas.

Now some are suggesting that this caused them to suffer from a variety of general vague illnesses and they are looking for compo.
 
Last edited:
cremeegg said:
Now some are suggesting that this caused them to suffer from a variety of general vague illnesses and they are looking for compo.
Click to expand...

If this is shown to be true do you not think that they, or their families, are entitled to seek some form of redress?
 
Lariam was prescribed, ordered, (see I am taking your point about the Defence Act on board) as an anti malarial.

Did the hierarchy of the defense forces act on the best medical advice at the time in choosing this drug. Did they make an informed decision based on its anti malarial properties balanced with the risk of any known side effects. Was this kept under review as new drugs were developed and possible issues with Lariam emerged.

Or did they just keep lashing out the old stuff because they were too lazy or stupid to change when questions arose about possible side effects.

How does our public service operate.
 
Last edited:
cremeegg said:
Or did they just keep lashing out the old stuff because they were too lazy or stupid to change when questions arose about possible side effects.
Click to expand...

And if they did, and some suffered the possible side effects, leading to commit suicide in some instances, do you think they or their families are entitled to seek some form of redress?
 
TheBigShort said:
And if they did, and some suffered the possible side effects, leading to commit suicide in some instances, do you think they or their families are entitled to seek some form of redress?
Click to expand...

Redress from whom, the tax payer ? Let those responsible in the army pay first. Let their pensions be taken before the taxpayer is asked to foot the bill.

Redress for whom, those who suffered side effects, or just anyone who makes a claim. As in the deafness case where those who suffered no hearing loss received payouts.
 
cremeegg said:
Redress from whom, the tax payer ?
Click to expand...

From those they perceive to be negligent, namely their employer, the State. Which is funded by the taxpayer.
Do you think they are entitled to seek some form of redress if they believe that they have suffered as a consequence of negligence or any other malpractice?
 
I've taken Lariam for malaria prevention a number of times. So have quite a few people I know.
Thankfully none of us, of anyone any of us know, has suffered and adverse effects.
That said it was not for prolonged periods.

If people have become ill due to the negligence of their employer then they deserve compensation. If the employer acted in good faith then I don’t see how they are to blame.


On the broader issue of PPE, if employees are issued with PPE and trained in the use of that PPE but continuously refuses to use it then the employer should not, in my opinion, be responsible for the consequences.
 
cremeegg I really think you are wrong on this one. The concerns about Lariam have been raised many many times. You should watch the Prime Time episode dedicated to it from a couple of years back. I think those affected are perfectly entitled to pursue this avenue if they feel they have a case.
Would you willingly take Lariam if you were in their position, knowing the concerns that were raised? Would you feel you have a case if you suffered after taking it? And if they are entitled to redress then of course it is the State, as their employer, who should pay. I have no idea what you mean by suggesting pensions be taken from army personnel - that's just nonsense. If an employee takes a case against his employer do you expect the CEO to pay for it out of his pension or would you expect the company to pay for it?
 
Ceist Beag said:
cremeegg I really think you are wrong on this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am.

But before deciding that I am wrong let us review the previous episode.

The army deafness debacle resulted in soldiers who had been issued PPE, who suffered no loss of hearing, being compensated to the tune of tens of thousands of Euro.

The legal profession collected in the region of €100 million as part of the whole mess.

So you will understand that I am a little sckeptical this time around.

There are a few things that disturb about the Lariam issue particularly.

Like deafness, the side effects claimed for for Lariam cannot be objectively tested.

Unlike the deafness debacle, where the army was negligent in its record keeping the suggestion here is that the army knowingly issued a drug with adverse side effects. As I said above either the army hierarchy acted on the best medical advice at the time or it did otherwise. If it did otherwise I think the individuals who took that decision should be held to account personally.

And the prospect of another €100 million to the lawyers upsets me. Indeed it makes me question the morality of paying taxes to feeds the sharks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register