Ok i am confused when i was watching sky at lunch time the story went something like this:
MOD question whether they were liable for the increased compensation due to complications during medical treatment (muted suggestions maybe should be covered by those undertaking the task of the treatment ie NHS)
MOD laywer sent out by judges during the lunch resess to find out exactly what role the soldier had in Iraq and what he was doing
Case about who pays for medical treatment caused complications so that pot could be focused on those with severe injuries not complications due to failings of others.
By this evening the MOD was reported as trying to refuse to pay compensation and they were money pinching jobsworth who were uncaring and depriving those who needed financial support of compensation.
How did this end up like this and is it just a case of a better story due to more contriversey? Really confused by this.