Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Gurkha U-Turn
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Gurkha U-Turn 
Some good news for our friends - at last long last.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5607207.ece


_________________
Veni vidi vinci
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Gurkha U-Turn 
Kentsboro wrote:
Some good news for our friends - at last long last.


Tony,

Let's hope this does not lead to the end of the Gurkhas as part of the our forces. HMG is currently counting the cost of first employing Gurkhas and now the subsequent costs in terms of Social Security and other costs. Having been forced to open the door, I wouldn't put it past them to close the door by not recruiting in the future.

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Exactly, Barry. I cannot bring myself to celebrate or comment on the site provided. OK, so the MoD denied a report that last week it wanted to scrap the Brigade of Gurkhas, but from where did the rumour originate? A leaked rumour is a damned good way of dipping a political toe into waters to test the temperature of public opinion. The toe was withdrawn and the MoD states that it needs the Gurkhas to fill the gap in the present low Army recruitment response in the UK, or words to that effect. I think their term was..."To boost Army numbers"....presumably to maintain the shaky status quo in Afghanistan. But what of the future? Afghanistan is just another war the Gurkhas have fought along with our troops for almost 200 years. The situation of our Nepalese comrades needs to be monitored carefully, not by the MoD but by past and present soldiers who have served with them.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I won't apologise for guessing wrongly what the result of the review would be: acting, as I was on my/our experiences of reviews.

However, Any reduction in recruiting, or cessation of recruiting will not only affect potential voluinteers, but most likely will affect the economy of Nepal itself. Recognition of loyalty is not something that this present government, or for that matter the 'suits, are given to.

The Bleeding Hearts in this Government and the Civil Service, will, I believe, have to change their priorities in favour of the Gurkhas who are an invaluable asset to this country, as opposed to those who come and use our system and take advantage of what is on offer and give little in return. It might help if, unlike Mr Blair who has assumed the cloak of a World Leader and peace maker, Mr Brown stopped following in Mr Blair's footsteps and started to act like a British Prime Minister; at the moment it looks as if Mr Brown is set on becoming the UN's peripatetic Economic Superman when he retires as PM.

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Having just re-read the Government's response to the Gurkha situation I particalarly noticed that they say...."Without flouting the judgement of the High Court we can still meet what the judges want by keeping the criteria as TIGHT as possible." And this is with regard to retired Gurkas. I cannot help feeling that, "As tight as possible," also refers to those still serving and future recruiment in Nepal. The Brigade of Gurkhas should never be seen as a mere stop-gap for decreasing recruitment at home, but a tried and long tested fighting force in the employ of our nation. Those of us who served with them know their enormous worth and loyalty.

Even though a future government might see the sense in restoring the Uk's axed regiments in order to restore the very basis of recruitment that comes of generations of family and regimental pride the present big BUT with regard to the future of the Gurkhas must be removed. With respect to all other Arms of our Services wars can only be won on the ground by men with guts behind the bayonet at the end of their rifle. Pride and tradition over many generations is the best way to get their sort into the army, and now we are very, very short of them.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Above I said that "I had guessed wrongly, but would not apologise.

Like Mike, I re-read the Times online, and found that I had rightly predicted that there would be some constraints/restrictions in their 'review'. This is not a smart Alec "I told you so"comment; I and I'm sure most of us would have predicted the result of any Government Department review(s), having been at the "soiled" end of the stick in the recent past, it emphasises the fact that any Departmental review will result in an outright rejection, or at least a poor compromise, if any.

They even had the nerve to publically state that "We can still meet what the judges want while keeping the criteria as tight as possible.....". Forecasting their intention to carry out the underhanded actions of which they are capable, as we are well aware. What, of course the Judges might wish to know is to what extent "as tight as possible" is considered by them to be commensurate with their, the judges, assessment of what is legal in accordance with the intended meaning of their given judgement.

I wrote on the 16th January 2009, "I suspect that there will be constraints, if not exclusions, upon those affected by the handover. What I understand is that pensions are set at the time of discharge and supplemented by a (small) annual increase (as are ours). The following sentance "All veterans will be allowed to settle in Britain and receive a full army pension"; as I said, the pension payable is that is that awarded at the time of discharge; "full army pension" requires qualification! "

"The MoD's greatest concern with the decision is the impact that it will have on the Nepalise Government". Since they don't appear to give a toss what the Malaysian Government think as regards their review of the PJM, are we expected to believe that the MoD have an honest concern as to the effects of their actions on the Nepalise Government or it's economy?

What the Government, MoD and Home Office should consider, having "great concern......", is what, to maintain their economic stability, the arrangements the Nepalise Government, and I make no suggestion here that the Gurkhas would ever be disloyal to the Crown, might make to ensure the future stability of their economy. Should the Nepalise discontinue their arrangement whereby Britain is permited to recruit, and the decline of recruiting in the British Army continues (let alone throughout the Armed Forces), to continue to recruit and maintain a Brigade of Ghurkhas on a similar basis as at present, they may have to be recruited individually on a contractual basis as British soldiers rather than specifically as Gurkhas, which could prove a lot more expensive than at present!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Revision/Review = control = Power! 
Twisted Evil

Deja bloody vu!

The latest Ministerial Statement given by Minister Phil Woolas MP (who may, in the future, like others, condemn his statement to the Commons as civil service nonsense), has all the cliches, obfuscation and deliberate manipulation of false premises of "our Review" to preclude most of the Gurkhas, quoting the new rules which are applicable to Officers but not the ORs, ie 20 years service as against the 15 years maximum for ORs; the requirement to have spent 3 years residence in the UK either prior or during their service, again a requirement unlikely to be achieved by many, if any, and other such booby traps. This totally cynical review which took 4 months to produce (apparently the new criteria took only one page for its content) shows all the class of MoD Honours 1, the perverse and dispassionate bafflegab of the Cabinet Ceremonial Office, and the almost racist discrimination of the Home Office in respect of Gurkhas compared with the treatment given to other 'Foreign' personnel serving in the British Forces and immigrants and their often large families). In terms of cost, to allow unrestricted right to all Gurkhas could be far less annually than the cost of Ministers claims for housing/food/bath plugs and Barbeques, one of whom is the boss of the Home Office - all within the rules, of course, and the employment by others of family members as assistants. Moreover the, in my view, totally unjustified bonuses given to top civil servants for simply doing their jobs, and often badly and expensively (eight useless C47H Chinooks for eg?) is unbelievable (unless of course there is to be a restriction on the number of OBEs/CBEs to be given away to CSs; more honest than saying awarded to which implies that merit and worthiness was a consideration).

I have to wonder if there was a special Part C (or A, B, etc) to these new rules to make sure that there was no doubt that the decision arrived at by these faceless wonders (sheltering behind the back of Mr Woolas), left no room for appeals (or so they might think).

I want to know why this review was left to civil servants rather than an open debate in Parliament with an all party vote at the end which, I believe, would have given the Gurkhas unrestricted right. Although I think I know the answer to that one too!

Can anyone have other than the most utter contempt for these civil servants and this floundering government?

Would this Government consider, having entered two American adventures without any hard intelligence to back their decision, be prepared to introduce National Service/conscription to make up for a possible shortfall in Gurkha recruitment? The likelyhood of them being re-elected is nil anyway, and perhaps they would lose any vote in the House of Commons.

It seems that the Army Top Brass think that this decision is acceptable; a lot different to their writing, and stated views given on TV interviews. Why haven't they got the nerve to resign from their posts in protest? I saw a Major Gen on TV News justifying the Home Office decision and his view that it was fair and compassionate (or words to that effect) although qualifying his view by saying that it was, in the end a Home Office Decision and not MoDs (don't blame me mate)!

Here we go again: Do not question the decision of honourable(?), experienced(?) and distinguished(?) gentlemen, in this case civil servants (and not Bankers) working to the "Its Departmental Policy Minister" formula. Questioning; " it simply isn't the done thing" - old chap!

Ah well end of April, May, June; getting near OBE/CBE time again!

Afterthought:

Remember their arrogant reply to the Court Judgement? ...."Without flouting the judgement of the High Court we can still meet what the judges want by keeping the criteria as TIGHT as possible." The thing is now, whether the Judge(s) at the High Court will agree that the "smart alec", barrackroom lawyer type of Home Office definition of the "tightness of the criteria" meets with the spirit and actual intent of the Judge's ruling or not. Personally, I think not, as do most campaigners.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Gurkha U turn. 
I refer to my above post of Feb 1st and the Government statement...."Without flouting the judgement of the High Court we can still meet what the judges want by keeping the criteria as tight as possible."

TIGHT yesterday's outcome certainly was, to the point of the strangulation of hope for so many of our old comrades in arms. My response to the awful news was one of immediate anger. Then came an overwhelming feeling of shame that I was a British subject somehow involved in this latest insult to Gurkha soldiers I had been proud to know and eat with as an honoured guest in their mess over 50 years ago. My anger is aimed at the head of this dishonourable government who has caused me to feel equally dishonourable by association as a British citizen. I object to having to feel this way, especially when I read every day how this son of a Scottish manse is fighting to uphold a long lost cause.

No apology from me, Barry. I am not talking politics, just referring to common decency.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Twisted Evil

Afterthought.

Does not the statement and subsequent cynical review by the Home Office amount to Contempt? I would like to see the Civil Service authors of that review, and not necessarily Phil Woolas who made the Ministerial Statement, called before the High Court to explain their "tightness of criteria" which apparently precludes a number (large?) of Gurkhas and why they think their decision will satisfy the Judge(s). It was after all they who made "tightness" statement - a warning perhaps that fairness and compassion would not be a consideration - let us see accountability at last.

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Even further, GLOman.

I think it should be seen as....."Contempt with intent and malice aforethought." Such behaviour begs the question WHY?


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Labour rebellion over treatment of retired Gurkhas grows 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5238044/Labour-rebellion-over-treatment-of-retired-Gurkhas-grows.html

From Brigadier Allan Alstead

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2504830.0.Affront_to_Gurkhas.php

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9316

Let's hope the debate in the House of Commons makes the Government alter its policy.

Hamish

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I have asked my MP via email to support the right of ALL Ghurkhas to stay in the UK.
May I ask you all to do the same there is to be a vote in the House.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I emailed Sandra Gidley - here's her reply :: "Thanks for getting in touch on this. I would very much have liked to be
present today to support this but I have a longstanding engagement
elsewhere. As this is a Lib Dem initiative (using our small allocation
of parliamentary time) - I would normally be on a three line whip to
attend anyway!. I have discussed the matter with our Chief Whip and he
has decided that my priority should be the Southampton event.

My party have been very proactive with regard to support for the ghurkas
and I shall send you more information by post.

I am personally very disappointed not to be able to be present.

Yours sincerely

Sandra Gidley MP
House of Commons SW1A 0AA
WM Telephone: 020 72195986
Constituency Telephone 01794 511900"


_________________
Veni vidi vinci
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum