Gurkhas Lose Equal Pay Appeal

This doesn't seem right to me, any views??

"These men put their lives at risk for the Crown for a considerable number of years. Once you are facing the same risks, you must receive the same rewards."

But Lords Justices Simon Brown, Chadwick and Rix, ruled the Ministry of Defence had not treated them unlawfully.

The usual double standards of this government whose flawed Lord Chancellor probably selected the judges concerned.

There was an article in the paper the other day (which I now cannot find), about ex-Ghurkas employed as guards on cross-channel ferries who are dealing with asylum seekers, but who are themselves not allowed to settle in the country they served.

Another entry in Tony Bliar's catalogue of shame.
I remember some idiot trying to justify this one to me by telling me that Gurkhas shouldn't receive the same pay/pensions as British born servicemen because it would make them essentially millionaires when they retired in own country, thus upsetting the "economic balance" of the area. Personally, I have never heard such a total bunch of Arrse in my entire life. If a Gurkha soldier does the same job and faces the same dangers as his British counterpart then he should receive the same pay and pension.

It's not just Tony B Liar's goverment that has treated them badly, just about every other goverment in the past has seen the Gurkhas as second-class citizens. Frankly it stinks :evil:
In total agreement, it's absolutely disgraceful, but sadly, unsurprising. The
Gurkhas have been screwed by governments of every hue in the political spectrum, and none of the ratbags has the honesty to put it right.
I wonder if a Ghurkha dies in combat as happened in Iraq whether his dead body would be allowed to stay in the UK, because his live body can't live here after 22 years service. Is this right or should we be ashamed? :oops:
MMmmmm - well let me put a counter argument without hopefully offending anyone:

- if they had equal pay - then the ecomony in Nepal would soon go bankrupt. That is fact. The Nepalese government accepts this which is the reason why they are not pushing for equal pay or pensions. Gurkhas do earn comparable pay and are far better off than their civilian counterparts.

- Furthermore, where is this extra money coming from ? The Defence Budget which would mean something would have to go to pay for it - eqpt or less tps ?

- Service is voluntary.

- Gurkhas receive extra allowances in the UK to cater for the high cost of living. This is not far off their British counterpart but of course they lose when they back home.

On another tack, if British Regiments are to be cut, then we should IMHO cut the Gurkhas. I have the utmost respect for them as superb fighting troops but we must not retain them at the expense of British servicemen or women.
I know this is going to throw the cat amongst the feathery things, and probably make me 'most hated'. So I'd first of all like to say that the comments I'm passing on here are not my views, but the 'facts' related to me by a serving officer. I'd never be clever enough to think this up on my own. :oops:

So here goes:-

The first point is that British Ghurkhas have always been well paid by Nepalese standards, which is why there is and never has been any problem getting our Nepalese friends to join. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s a fact, they wouldn’t work as hard at joining if they didn’t want to.
When they leave, the pension is so good (by Nepalese standards) that the veteran supports the whole of his immediate family by principally bringing in more income than the rest of the family ever could.

There is a problem comes when the Ghurkhas get a pension on par with a normal squaddie as it does several things most of which the Nepalese govt are more keen to prevent than the British. Sounds crazy, but life is sometimes very crazy

1. It would turn the country into a financially polarized society. Relatively few rich ‘haves’ and a lot of very poor ‘have nots’. I can hear the cries of ‘They’ve earnt it!’ already, but the main result being an exodus of economic refugees to other countries that already have too many people and few well paid jobs (eg. India). The reason that the Nepalese govt don’t mind their men going to the UK and India to serve is that they remove a burden of unemployment from the country and return with a pension after 22 years which is enough to support themselves and their family. If people moved away as economical refugees the chance is they wouldn’t earn enough and if they did return it would be as a further burden to the Nepalese economy.

2. It would make the Ghurkhas much less of an attractive option for the British. Their cost effectiveness was one of the few 'rational' arguments that stopped all the Ghurkha battalions from being lost during 'ethnic cleansing', sorry 'options for change'!

The trouble would be that as soon as point 2 came into effect, the few, now short term, advantages of point 1 would cease to exist, but all the disadvantages would remain, causing a collapse in what little economy Nepal has.

Like I say, I would much prefer the Ghurkhas to be treated like everyone else who serves our country and maybe one option would be the offer of a normal pension if they choose to settle in the UK and a reasonable increase to their present pension if they choose to return to Nepal. Who knows, people on a much higher pay bands than mine are thinking about this one. I just thought I’d add a different perspective to stop the thread from being too one sided. :roll:

Right, give me a chance to dig a nice deep trench, don my CBA and place my helmet firmly on my bonce before the incoming starts.

I say scrap the lot of em! Bunch of lazy whiners who are so far removed from the romantic poppy cock reputation that it is scary! I have worked with them for two years and one operational tour, they are crap. As soon as they don’t want to do some thing they play the “can’t understand English card” and now they are playing the race card.

When options for change kicked in they should have been the first to go! Why keep them? Any one who rates them has definitely NOT worked with them!
The Ghurkas are the last true mercenary force, but the difference is that it's been integrated into the Army.

They fight, and die, for pay, not for Queen and country, and therefore deserve whatever is offered to them. If they don't like it they can go to the mountains and go back to whatever they were doing or would be doing, like shagging sheep and goats and snuffling for roots :D
I see he's a member of the Irish Round Table........
The going rate for employing ex-gurkha soldiers is up to $1000 for third-world countries, $2000 for western Europe/US, and $3000 for Iraq/Afghanistan. Allegedly.
How the hell did this happen???
After this ruling,do they expect us to take anything they say seriously?(Did we ever anyway?)
At least the MOD and the judiciary are setting an example of how civil and miliary orginisations work well together.
Oooooh bit of politics there.
Anything to save a bit of coin.
Not really politics.... just a case of signing a contract and deciding later that you'd be well off if you play the system and shout 'foul'!

For once the govt have done the right thing.... the same thing they should have done when gays claimed for being kicked out of the army (They signed a contract saying they weren't gay!) And all the women who got pregnant to get out of the army and then claimed for loss of earnings.... (they signed knowing that if they got pregnant whilest seving they'd be discharged).

What really annoyed me about the 'claim even though I know I was breaking my contract' brigade is that they often recived payouts many times the compensation of those who lost limbs and were disabled whilest serving..... just one word for it..... disgusting!

It would be too much to hope that they feel ashamed while they spend all that compensation..... but I somehow feel they really do believe that they were hard done by?
As usual a mix of facts, rumour and prejudice.

I've worked with them for two years and thoughts they were fantastic - although they could be better led by some of their (British) officers but I suppose that the same could be said for all of us.

The tri-partite agreement with India/UK/Nepal is set to allow the Indians, who take many more than us, a fair crack of the whip. This means that we cannot uinilaterally vary the terms.

The reason that they cannot resettle in the UK, whilst I agree is uniquitious, is a function of the agreement and helps the Nepal govt ensure that money keeps flowing into Nepal.

The pay was sorted out by basically keeping to the letter of the agreement and then paying them all sorts of 'allowances' which brings jonny g up to a par with tommy a.

The pension provisions do not allow this to happen, however within the terms of the agreement they are very well off in retirement. A Rifleman's pension is equivalent to a Nepalese Army Major's.

Although it is all rather paternalistic and victorian, the system works and works well. To get them to par could lead to their disbandment and I for one would rather that did not happen, even if it means having to face down the righteous and well meaning indignation of the less well-informed.

Similar threads

Latest Threads