Iraqi shot by British soldier awarded £2m

Sandi's picture
Submitted by Sandi on Tue, 2008-04-15 10:58

"A young Iraqi man left paralysed after he was accidentally shot by a British soldier will receive £2 million in compensation, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

The sum is far higher than anything paid to British soldiers injured in combat. The maximum payout an individual can receive is £285,000 and many soldiers do not even receive that, despite suffering horrific injuries.

Royal Marine Mark Ormrod, 24, was blown up by a land mine on patrol in Helmand province.

He lost an arm and both legs but was only offered £214,000 in compensation.

Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, 23, was left with 37 injuries including severe brain damage, speech loss and the amputation of both legs after an explosion in Afghanistan.

He was awarded £152,150."


Meanwhile 176 British soldiers have been killed in Iraq.


This is utterly disgusting.

( categories: )

I'm not mad at the civilian...

mvardoulis's picture

...but TWO ***MILLION*** ENGLISH POUNDS...? I get the idea that a civilian doesn't sign up for the ravages of war (such as myself!), but does there have to be such a huge dichotomy between what an injured UK soldier gets and what a hapless injured civilian gets? I don't even want to think about what a US Soldier gets (bad enough whatever they get is in US dollars)...


Robert's picture

I don't begrudge the civilian anything. I'm sorry that it happened but that's war. Unfortunately in this war, combat can be joined anywhere at anytime, that's his bad luck.

But given how Sandi is banging on about Muslims and politically correct enablers I wanted to point out that there is actually a purpose to this payout.

Whatever your opinion on the ruling...

Matty Orchard's picture

You can't really be mad at the poor civilian can you?

To be fair...

Robert's picture

Soldiers accept the risk of death or dismemberment when they sign up. On the other hand, the civilian was in a war zone and thus could not expect to wander about foot loose and fancy free.

The real reason for the payout is partly tactical & partly political. The Coalition is fighting an anti-guerrilla warfare campaign. Their new strategy revolves around protecting the population from the enemy. Accidentally shooting an innocent Iraqi is a set-back when seen in this light.

So to counteract this and demonstrate that the Coalition - while imperfect - is a hell of a lot better than the enemy they make amends.

Some will no doubt condemn this as an act of altruism. They would be wrong. This is pragmatism in furtherance of a more lofty military goal.

The war in Iraq is what it is. There are only three paths available: (1) Cut and run (2) continue on until some semblance of stability exists in Iraq. (3) Total war on Al Quaeda and their Iranian and Syrian allies.

Path #1 leads to military and geopolitical disaster. Path #3 is impossible in the current political & philosophical climate.

That leaves path #2 and along the way, things like this payout will happen. Bottom line is that this Iraqi being shot was a fuck-up given the military strategy forced upon the Coalition by the political & philosophical climate in the West.


mvardoulis's picture

Where can *I* go to get shot by a British Soldier!?!? Do you know how far 2 million British pounds will go in Southern California!?!?

Oh wait, I just thought of how to get shot by a British soldier...! But it would involve getting a hold of some of my mother's distant relatives in Northern Ireland... and supposedly they've disarmed themselves now that they have a political voice in Parliament, so never mind.

Staggering report, Sandi.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.