Gurkhas lose pension court battle

#2
Damn
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Well, the MPs need it to top up their £60,000+ salaries to pay for their second homes, family jobs, weekly food, travel and secretarial allowances.

Of COURSE it shouldn't be given to people who have actually SERVED the country. What were we thinking?
 
#4
Do we have the Government's reasons?
 
#6
I'm as much an admirer of the Gurkhas as anybody else but I cant really get excited about this. Whenever a pension scheme is changed there will be winners and losers and in this case they lost out. A friend of mine got his police pension last year and a month ago the Home Sec. announced that the Lump Sum on police pensions was to be increased which would have given him an extra £20k if he had retired this year. It happens, get over it.
 
#7
Jaeger said:
I'm as much an admirer of the Gurkhas as anybody else but I cant really get excited about this. Whenever a pension scheme is changed there will be winners and losers and in this case they lost out. A friend of mine got his police pension last year and a month ago the Home Sec. announced that the Lump Sum on police pensions was to be increased which would have given him an extra £20k if he had retired this year. It happens, get over it.
Jaeger,

Sorry about your mate, but this is a bit different, surely? These three gents have, arguably, been unlawfully treated. There will be an appeal.

And there's the small matter of huge Taxi bills run up by the MoD while all this was going on, making their remark in court that the Gurkha's claims were "unaffordable" look a mite silly, IMHO.
 
#8
If the legal argument pro MOD revolved around the hong Kong period, does that mean British soldiers who were based there during that period should a)have a reduced pensuion or b)pay back their whopping LOA??
 
#9
Cuddles said:
If the legal argument pro MOD revolved around the hong Kong period, does that mean British soldiers who were based there during that period should a)have a reduced pensuion or b)pay back their whopping LOA??
surely you mean LKFA (Lang Kwai Fong Allowance)? the additional numbers at the end of one's monthly pay statement that allowed one to have a pint or 3 (beer £5 a pint 10 years ago)
 
#10
don't try and change the subject SBP Sahib...I expect a cheque for your LOA/LKFA to be in the hands of the gurkha Trust by midnight tomorrow!
 
#12
Those guys fought for Britain and this is how the government repays them...it's simply dreadful :mad:
 
#13
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Jaeger said:
I'm as much an admirer of the Gurkhas as anybody else but I cant really get excited about this. Whenever a pension scheme is changed there will be winners and losers and in this case they lost out. A friend of mine got his police pension last year and a month ago the Home Sec. announced that the Lump Sum on police pensions was to be increased which would have given him an extra £20k if he had retired this year. It happens, get over it.
Jaeger,

Sorry about your mate, but this is a bit different, surely? These three gents have, arguably, been unlawfully treated. There will be an appeal.

And there's the small matter of huge Taxi bills run up by the MoD while all this was going on, making their remark in court that the Gurkha's claims were "unaffordable" look a mite silly, IMHO.
Just to be clear on this, I only used my mate as an example of winners and losers, I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone feel sorry for him, I don't for a start!
As far as the three Gurkhas are concerned I don't see how they've been unlawfully treated (based on the little information I have at the moment at least) and neither apparently, do the courts. There's an awful lot of emotion involved in this because everybody loves the Gurkhas, but it has to be looked at with a disapassionate eye. There were very good reasons for the differences in terms of service between Gurkha servicemen and british servicemen in the first place, and it wasn't just a case of HMG and all those black hearted politicians milking poor old Johnny G. over the years. We need to remember too that all these guys were volunteers from the off.
 
#14
Jaeger said:
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Jaeger said:
I'm as much an admirer of the Gurkhas as anybody else but I cant really get excited ----
There were very good reasons for the differences in terms of service between Gurkha servicemen and british servicemen in the first place, and it wasn't just a case of HMG and all those black hearted politicians milking poor old Johnny G. over the years. We need to remember too that all these guys were volunteers from the off.
Does anyone have any figures as to what a British squaddie and a Gurkha might be paid by way of a pension?

We need to remember too that all these guys were volunteers from the off
So, I should imagine, are most of the Forces receiving a pension now.
 
#15
happybonzo said:
Jaeger said:
King_of_the_Burpas said:
Jaeger said:
I'm as much an admirer of the Gurkhas as anybody else but I cant really get excited ----
There were very good reasons for the differences in terms of service between Gurkha servicemen and british servicemen in the first place, and it wasn't just a case of HMG and all those black hearted politicians milking poor old Johnny G. over the years. We need to remember too that all these guys were volunteers from the off.
Does anyone have any figures as to what a British squaddie and a Gurkha might be paid by way of a pension?

We need to remember too that all these guys were volunteers from the off



So, I should imagine, are most of the Forces receiving a pension now.
The Gurkhas (however brilliant at soldiering that they are) must have accepted the terms when they signed the dotted line.
I think there is another campaign (CAFF???) for British soldiers who were serving before 1975 unless the did 22 years they are not entitled to any form of military pension (even when they are 65), but they must have knew that was the policy when they joined. I don't see much support for them on this site.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top