Ghurka pensions - Lost test case

matt_fsr

matt_fsr

matt_fsr

Soldato
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Posts
5,714
Location
Durham
So the MOD won't cough up a proper pension for retired Ghurkas, who left the Army before 1997.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8452393.stm

"The veterans can get a third of the monthly amount of UK-based soldiers."

Anyone else think this is thoroughly rotten? :mad: I'd happily cut back on any one of numerous Government schemes, ID cards, benefits etc to be able to pay these men a fair pension.

It's not like many will have a huge amount of life left, given that they've already had 12 years + living on such meagre pensions.

Perhaps fair enough for living in Nepal, but don't we owe these men better than that?
 
All former UK service personell who are eligable for a pension should be given a pension on par with their peers. By this I mean a Ghurka Cpl (or equililent) with 12 years service should be given the same pension as an infantry Cpl with 12 years service.
 
As far as I see it they are basically mercenaries and got payed to do a job, which was to fight for us. Once the job ends thats it. The amount they get payed lets them live fine in Nepal.
 
greywolf said:
As far as I see it they are basically mercenaries and got payed to do a job, which was to fight for us. Once the job ends thats it. The amount they get payed lets them live fine in Nepal.
Click to expand...

They have the right to settle in the UK now so that pension will not do much in this country, which is one of the reasons it was increased for serving members recently.
 
The Ghurkas knew the deal when they signed up.

This would be like me getting a poo job, working it for my whole life, then complaining that my pension wasn't good enough just as I sit into my armchair when I'm 65 after suddenly realising that I actually wanted to be paid more money thank you very much.

It's sad but the floodgates argument simply prevents this from occurring. Can you imagine the cost to the UK taxpayer.
 
I agree with robbie G and in some respects their pay and conditions are better than UK soldiers. I don't think they should have changed the rules to let them settle either.
 
I also agree the whole thing got blown out of whack and now we are going to have to pay another frigging 50m+ a year tax
 
I suppose it depends on if you view the army as a job or something more than that.

I only see it as a job and there is no way I am signing up to be shot at unless I am going to be minted when I come home so I don't join.

The 2nd world war was different with conscription but these people weren't from the UK. You can argue that they agreed to the deal and were happy at the time, why do they want money and citizenship all of a sudden now? They CHOSE the job.

We don't pay for Americans veterans pensions or Austrailians despote them helping greatly in WW2. Why do these guys deserve our money?

In this day and age you get what you sign up for, if you don't like it then don't sign up.

so I am not sure, I would have to know more about why they decided to help us. If they were indeed contracted by the British Army and told they would get a pension then we should obviously honour it. If not then it is Nepals issue, ie why did you give us loads of troops for free?
 
Last edited:
Ghurkas have fought for Britain for 200 years and done so with utter dedication and loyalty and as naturally talented fighting men they are unrivalled.

What are they ultimately expected to do ..... give their lives for the UK is what.

That alone makes them worth equal payment and if that costs 50million a year extra then you hear no complaints from me and they are worth every penny and more, as are any military personnel who fight for the UK. I sleep just that bit better for them being there.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Ghurkas have fought for Britain for 200 years and done so with utter dedication and loyalty and as naturally talented fighting men they are unrivalled.

What are they ultimately expected to do ..... give their lives for the UK is what.

That alone makes them worth equal payment and if that costs 50million a year extra then you hear no complaints from me and they are worth every penny and more, as are any military personnel who fight for the UK. I sleep just that bit better for them being there.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world, obviously this would be the case, it is not easy to put a price on a human life, especially that of your own when signing up to protect someone in another country. :eek:

But if we used your logic the UK would be bankrupted. considering how many wars we have had and total people serving under us. Our entire generation would be pretty much slaves to the previous veterans.

Perhaps that is how it should be and it might remind us not to start wars so willy nilly. :)
 
Pay them, and pay them properly. Give them a pension equal to their current serving peers.

These men gave their lives for our country, and our freedom. To fob them off is an absolute disgrace.
 
Agreed, they fought for this country, they should be paid the same as others.

It is somewhat annoying that it is things like this the government can't afford, but seemingly finds the money for other rather stupid and pointless things.
 
Last edited:
The government is broke as all hell and you want them to pay more out of the goodness of their heart?

I have my sympathies, but I'd also rather not see the country fall apart. They're in line with the law as it stood at the applicable time, and should not be emotionally blackmailed into doing more than is required of them.
 
starfighter said:
But if we used your logic the UK would be bankrupted. considering how many wars we have had and total people serving under us. Our entire generation would be pretty much slaves to the previous veterans.
We would not be bankrupted in giving Ghurkas equal pension rights and I am sure that efficiency savings could be made elsewhere to pay for it such as giving China 30 million a year in foreign aid when they have around 2 trillion dollars in currency reserve.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
If you knew how many Nepalese fail to get selected for the British Army, you could see it as a privilege to be chosen to fight and be rewarded for it, compared to those that are left in Nepal doing what they do to support themselves.
 
starfighter said:
...But if we used your logic the UK would be bankrupted. considering how many wars we have had and total people serving under us. Our entire generation would be pretty much slaves to the previous veterans...
Click to expand...

The UK pretty much *is* bankrupt; the paltry sums required to pension these people are nothing compared to some of the half-witted schemes being thrown around by the institution right now. I don't think you fully understand how the UK Armed Forces / Ghurka relationship works either... Might want to do some reading up on them, old bean. ;)
 
They fight for us because its a damn sight better than living in a ****ty little village and huge amount of pay they make sets them up for life.... Its akin to being a mercenary 100% - just because they are hard as nails and insaineley fit as well is a bonus.

this isnt the 19th century any more. just cos we are at war in 2 countries doesnt mean we have to idolise every bloody soldier - its a career choice (at the moment ) thank god.
 
If you fight to defend this country then you should be entitled to the same considerations as serving British soldiers regarding pay, pensions and conditions. In response to Greywolf, all due respect mate, but the British army does not consist of Mercenaries. A foreign non-conscript professional member of a regular army does not constitute a mercenary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom