Is this the right way to reward loyalty?

  Forum Editor 23:59 28 Mar 2007

click here

We've discussed this in the past, but it's something that really gets me going, and it's a current issue, so I wondered what you thought.

When I visit Hong Kong I often spend an evening at my client's house on The Peak, where the rich folk live. He lives in a very swish closed, guarded compound, and the guards are ex-Ghurkas. You couldn't hope to meet a more friendly and loyal bunch of men, and they're OK, thanks to the fact that they organised themselves into a private security company after Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule, and Britain abandoned the Hong Kong Ghurkas to their fate.

Not all ex Ghurkas are so lucky however, as the item I've linked to demonstrates. The killer is the quote from The Ministry of defence, to the effect that "Gurkha pensions were designed for retirement in Nepal, where the cost of living is much lower than in the UK."

Not really an expression of the value we should place on men who have given a lifetime of service to a foreign nation's army, is it?

  WhiteTruckMan 00:22 29 Mar 2007

will probably be familiar with the concept that the MoD seem to subscribe to the Stalinist view that gratitude is a disease suffered by dogs.

But then again, its a viewpoint that I think a few here share as well when it comes to serving your country.

Disgusted at the treatment?



Absolutely not!


(ex-Royal Air Force, and damned proud of it too!)

  Jak_1 00:32 29 Mar 2007

The view I have held all along is that they should recieve the same pension, rank for rank, as the regular forces given that the Ghurkas are a part of our regular forces per se.
I was privilledged on two occasions to serve with them, once whilst I was Ships Company of HMS Ghurka with a Ghurka detachment on board and again whilst serving on board HMS Arrow as West Indies Guardship. A more friendly and dedicated people you could not hope ro meet. They deserve to be treated the same as everyone else, cost of living in Nepal should not even enter the equation.

  TOPCAT® 00:34 29 Mar 2007

a decent pension by successive governments in this country. Yet, when Britain's interests are threatened or troubles arise on a distant shore, they are one of the first regiments to be called upon to face it.

I had the pleasure of serving with them, for a short period, back in the sixties and a better body of men would be hard to find. They are conscientous and immaculate in whatever task they undertake and are a real credit to their regiments.

I was highly impressed by their military skills during my time with them and am quite disgusted to learn that they are, after all this time, still deprived of a decent pension. TC.

  Cannuck 00:39 29 Mar 2007

This is a total disgrace. All members of the British Army should have the same wages, privileges and benefits, regardless of where they come from (rank aside of course).

These people are willing to defend this country, and give their life for it, even though it is not their homeland. Give every soldier who wore the Queen's uniform the same pension as the Brit born soldiers, after all, they are just as loyal, no, actually more loyal, as they know the shafting they will get when they retire, but still soldier on.

If the government can find all kinds of benefits for asylum seekers, legit and otherwise, and billions for a few athletes to run around a new stadium, why the heck can't they pay these people, who have served this country with dignity and honour, the pension they deserve. Oh, and backdate it to include every living soldier, here and Nepal, or wherever they are.

To the government, give them it now, and pretend it is a tax, and make it effective tomorrow, not in 2009 or whatever.


  smokingbeagle 03:09 29 Mar 2007

click here

Larger interests prevail over decency.

  Chegs ®™ 03:25 29 Mar 2007

As has been said above,the gurkas fought for the UK so give them the same pension as retiring UK soldiers.

  georgemac © 07:33 29 Mar 2007

I agree with all that has been said above - as a nation we should be ashamed about how we have treated these fine men and their families

Pity our MP's did not show the same level of concern for the Ghurka's pension, or the pensioners whose funds went buts, as they do for their own vastly inflated pensions, given to them by themselves!

  Monoux 07:38 29 Mar 2007

FE-- methinks you've touched a raw nerve

  laurie53 07:58 29 Mar 2007

They can't afford this as they need the money for their websites

click here


  georgemac © 08:21 29 Mar 2007

Sorry to go off topic, but in response to the link posted by Laurie53 this first section is a quote from Jack Straw with regard to each MP getting a new allowance of £10000 per year to spend on websites

"Commons Leader Jack Straw told MPs: "The purpose of this allowance is to contribute to better public understanding of what this Parliament is about and what it does...

"It's important for the health of our democracy for the public to know more about what we do."

He added it was better "not to become a propaganda tool for the use of incumbents" and it was time to "make clear what the rules are"

This will become a propaganda tool, and will be used by MP's to post what they want us to think they do! I bet none of them will mention that MP's can drink in a bar in the commons at tax free prices, or none of them will post details of the MP's pension scheme - what a waste of money!

This will cost £6,500,000 plus the extra admin costs for allocating it. If a GHurka pensioner living in Nepal gets £130 per month pension, this money would provide another 4166 pensions for retired ghurkas and their families!

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

How Social Media has Propelled Political Graphic Design and Art in the Last Decade

The best kids apps for iPhone & iPad 2018

HomePod d’Apple : date de sortie, prix et fiche technique