You are comparing apples and oranges. The problem with the army deafness was that it was impossible to measure accurately if hearing loss was suffered, or the effects of tinnitus. All that could be established was that they were exposed to conditions (failure to effectively administering protective hearing equipment) in an environment (military training) that plausibly could lead to someone suffering tinnitus.As in the deafness case where those who suffered no hearing loss received payouts.
To say that “everyone involved may not have had a valid claim” hardly cuts it. I refer you again to the links in post 6 of this thread.See the thing is cremeegg, you may have valid concerns but to go calling people "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case is in the land of Donald Trump! BTW
Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "may again not " suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims.Now it seems possible that further vast sums will be paid out, possibly where everyone concerned may again not have a valid claim.
I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "may again not " suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims.
Either there is a valid claim or not. That will be decided through the claims and courts process.
The payments in army deafness cases were made on foot of legal argument determining that that the claimants did have a valid claim.
It has already been stated by other posters that Lariam was taken without side effects.
Critical to all of this will be evidence of pro-longed use and/or continued administration of a drug after it was known (if at all) to Army hierarchy of its potential dangers.
Once that is established, medical histories of claimants combined with their usage of the drug will also be critical.
I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.Stop muddying the waters by mixing the issues cremeegg. We're no longer talking about the deafness claims, we're now talking about the potential Lariam claims. So post 6 of this thread is no longer relevant.
The phrase "obscene greedy chancers" was intended to refer to those who profited from the army deafness scam, even though they were issued with ear protection and suffered no hearing loss. I think under the circumstances it is a reasonable characterisation.You are calling the people in the latest Lariam story "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case.
You have absolutely no evidence of this, merely a concern based on the previous deafness cases. Therefore your description of these people is emotive and unsubstantiated, kind of like the statements the orange character tweets regularly.
I don't doubt it. But ultimately it was the courts that decided the claims were valid. They did this through legal argument.I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.
It has no bearing. It is a totally different situation, different claim, different basis, different context etc.I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.
Your inherent prejudice is all too apparent. You are declaring this issue a "scam" without anything to back that assertion up other than your perceived view that the army deafness claims were all a scam, so therefore this must be a scam too.As to the Lariam situation, I think that every "obscene greedy chancer" who ever wore a uniform will gravitate to this scam as well
I take then it you are still peddling the Lariam issue as a scam?Another mini compo arranged for our heroes has just been announced.
Still this one will only cost in the region of €120,000, so no biggie.
There doesn’t seem to be any provision for lawyers to wet their beaks. I wonder.
Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified.I take then it you are still peddling the Laraim issue as a scam?
I will take this that you do consider it a scam. Despite @Itchy post above which suggests that tests of the drug have objectively verified side effects of the ones being suffered you still continue your unsubstantiated nonsense.Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified.
a) the Minister will probably be blamed by opposition politicians and media hacks looking for a headline to feed the baying sheepYou can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.