[mad=dog]

The real problem is that the current government didn't commit the crime. Sometimes these things sound like the secret is passed from prime minister to prime minister and they all just stick together, but that is hardly so. If the article had been written differently (and with a fair deal less sensationalism) I reckon a completely different message could be send.

"Government recognises war heroes"

"For decades we have forgotten about them. Most of us know about the brave men who died on the battlefield, but what about those who were injured or died to develop the protective gear that saved many of their comrades? Well finally the current government is doing what we have been neglecting for so long. They are paying out compensation to those afflicted or in case they have passed away to their willfull heriditary.
In most cases determining the recipient has been easy, however the process is still going on as the list is long and members of that generation does not have a tendency to leave a legally binding will."

"Secret government chemical warfare programme" just sell more newspapers than "gas mask testing and fitting". ANYTHING the military does during wartime is secret. Fullstop. From what I can read they were exposed to known chemicals with known methods of dispersal meaning that they were with 95% chance involved in a project about countermeasures. We don't know if they had consent from the soldiers involved. They may very well have been asked to sign a document of agreement. It doesn't make it right for a government to do these things though. Nothing is right during war.

The only thing of slight value in the article is that beaurocracy is always annoying. However imagine if they DIDN'T check anything and some thief claimed Mrs. Bradens compensation in her name. Now THAT could get my piss boiling.