285000 Pounds would buy my property fully modified and with considerable change in the pocket.

Assuming you are also left with some form of pension for your service.

While I sympathise with the soldier involved and the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his service (whether you agree with his bosses decision to go in the first place or not), why are we turning into a country of greedy individuals.

Has Americanism completely taken over?

Surely the problem here is that our judges are detaiched from reality in civil cases as opposed to the other way round.

Salty, Reading,

Whilst we, as a nation, allow the authorities to treat our armed forces so shabbily, yet kow-tow to those who see Britain as a cash cow, we deserve all we get. It is the responsibility of us all to protest to our Members of Parliament against this giving-away of what little assets remaining in our country.
How can we afford £2 million to an Iraqi; £100 million for mosquito nets and much more 'give-aways', at the same time we are 'tightening our belts' to face an economic crisis not of our making?

Les Mitchell, Crewkerne, UK

In addition to what other people have said about the risk of getting injured being part of a soldier's job description, there's something else at work here too. The British government was not directly to blame for Parkinson's injury, which came as a result of enemy action. But the civillian was shot by a British soldier, meaning that the UK should take full responsibility.

Kevin, Beijing, China

When compensation becomes individual reparation, awards of this magnitude will literally bankrupt Britain. Now throw in infrastructural, environmental and ecological damage: That's what happens when you prosecute a war according to the Health and Safety manual. Your tax money, folks.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

Parkinson didn't invade. He was deployed by the government who we as voters ended up electing. The military are a tool used by our government for whatever reason they see fit. The argument needn't be concerned with who gets how much but rather the compensation should cover the injuries received by the soldier whilst he carries out his honourable job. Clearly this unfortunate soldier is not receiving enough to cover the disability he now faces as a result of the courageous work he does. Yes he had a choice to become a soldier but he does that to defend his nation, whilst others who sit in offices working equally hard in their jobs but might unfortunately be hit by a bus on their lunch break are eligible for considerably more than military personnel. Just?

James, london,

Soldiers are expected to be injured.. they are doing their duty.. while non military person is simply should not be involved in such things.. so its logical to compensate the civilian more... this is my opinion

Yaser, london,

Choice. Parkinson could have refused to fight. He didn't. He was paid for his work already. He knew the risks. This madness wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for people like Parkinson who invaded. The boy had no choice.

James, London, UK

How come this boy "moved" to the UK and was allowed to persue a claim here? He could have been compensated in Iraq in line with his standard of living there.
Yet another slap in the face for our troops.The way they are treated,equipped and ignored is nothing short of a National disgrace and we should be ashamed

Rist, Kings Lynn, UK

Why are the Iraqis allowed access to British courts, and how are they getting into Britain to lodge compensation claims.. What next a compesation claim from German citizens for allied bombing raids during WW11? Give me strength.

Cromwell, Leeds, England

Military personel have to unfortunately take the risk of being injured ni combat as part of the territory. However, when an non-military person gets shot I think it is right for him to get this compensation particularly as he has been left paralysed.

Sam, Manchester,