News

Gurkhas club together for MoD request

By Stephanie Cockroft
May 24, 2012

GURKHAS have raised £600 to buy information from the Ministry of Defence in a bid to prove they are not a burden on those living in Aldershot.

It comes after two campaign groups launched petitions to lobby the government about an influx of Nepalese living in the borough of Rushmoor.

Now a group of campaigners who fight for Gurkha rights, including several Gurkhas from the Aldershot and Farnborough communities, have sent a request to the MoD to find out full details of what it is costing the UK to cater for the large numbers of Nepalese families.

The group was also encouraged to take action after an article in the People on Sunday, in which Tory MP Patrick Mercer claimed Gurkha soldiers were much more expensive than their British counterparts.

But the level of information requested was so detailed that the MoD said the group had to pay £600 for the time it would take to research the responses.

It prompted Gurkhas from around Hampshire, and particularly from barracks around Aldershot, to cobble together and ask as many people as possible in their community to donate £1.

The fundraising target was reached in just two days.

David Hughes, a former committee member of the Yateley and Hawley Royal British Legion, who describes himself as a Gurkha Welfare Specialist, pioneers the campaign group Vote 4 Gurkha Rights, which has submitted the request under the Freedom of Information act.

He said: “To see stories about people living in Aldershot setting up campaigns and petitions against Nepalese people is shocking. I am alive because of Gurkhas.

“The problem is that few people understand at the moment what the impact on Gurkhas and their families is. They are making a huge contribution to our society.

“After seeing these stories, the Gurkhas were so adamant that the truth should prevail, they had no problem doing a whip-round and getting the money together.”

Mr Hughes added that residents could expect “nothing else” from a Garrison town.

Among the 30 questions submitted by the group is a request about how much the British Government has been paid in citizenship charges from wives, children and serving officers of Gurkhas.

The group also wants to know how much money the British Government has given to charities, local authorities, community groups and NHS bodies, in relation to Gurkhas’ right to settle. Mr Hughes said: “Gurkha veterans and their families are working civilian tax payers.

“They are a major part of military and civilian working society in the UK.”

Last week, MP for Aldershot Gerald Howarth accepted a 2,000-strong petition from Lumley’s Legacy, which he says he will hand to the government.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 15 of 62

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

@ Taff rail Their pensions should have been adjusted to allow them to enjoy the same standard of living as our British troops. If you read what I have said correctly you will see that I have said the same standard of living as our troops, not the same monetary value.

UKR
22/06/2012 at 16:22

So why are the Gurkha soldier complaining - you just add up what they have had and then you add up what my father had - as he died 6 years after getting his pension!!

Aldershot Born 22/06/2012 at 13:37

They are complaining for a number of reasons, mainly because a number of ex-officers and nco's are jealous of those Gurkha soldiers who came after them (that is from 1997 onwards) and who are receiving better pensions than they are.

Secondly, it's because they cannot decide whether to play the 'We're self-sufficient' or the poverty card

If Gurkhas really want to turn the clock back and have the same conditions as their British based contemporaries, and expecially British soldiers who left pre-1975 , a large number of them might find themselves paying back pensions that they have already received.

Taff Rail
22/06/2012 at 15:48

reply to following:-I must disagree with your second sentence in context with your first. Why should Gurkhas in Nepal receive a pension that would make them quite weathy in their country, even more so than the comfortable living that their present pre-1997 level pension allows them? You mention the same standard of living as British troops; Gurkhas who retire on immediate pension at aged around 32/33 enjoy a better RELATIVE standard of living in Nepal than a British soldier in UK who gets an immediate (but insuffient without the need to augment it by working) pension if he or she serves to age 40 or has to wait until aged 60 if he or she serves less than than 22 years.

Taff Rail

Yet my mother and father had to wait until they retired my mum 60 years old and my dad 65 years old - aand yet the Gurkha get theirs as soon as they are out of armed forces well i find this unfair on our british forces!!

So why are the Gurkha soldier complaining - you just add up what they have had and then you add up what my father had - as he died 6 years after getting his pension!!

Aldershot Born
22/06/2012 at 13:37

TaffRail: The flaw in your argument comes in your use of the word 'relative'. The gurkhas don't do a 'relative' level of work to other British soldiers, they do the same level of work. Why should they, therefore be paid less?

It is irrelevant that a full Army pension will make them comparatively wealthy in Nepal, because the work they did or are doing was in and for this country's armed forces. Nepal is a very poor country so practically anyone from this country is going to be well-off by their standards.

Those doing the same work should be paid the same pension and samw wages. And I suspect that once they've got it, many or most of our Nepalese neighbours will choose to go home.

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
22/06/2012 at 13:21

The Nepalese should not have been given the right to settle in this country. Their pensions should have been adjusted to allow them to enjoy the same standard of living as our British troops.

UKR

I must disagree with your second sentence in context with your first. Why should Gurkhas in Nepal receive a pension that would make them quite weathy in their country, even more so than the comfortable living that their present pre-1997 level pension allows them?

You mention the same standard of living as British troops; Gurkhas who retire on immediate pension at aged around 32/33 enjoy a better RELATIVE standard of living in Nepal than a British soldier in UK who gets an immediate (but insuffient without the need to augment it by working) pension if he or she serves to age 40 or has to wait until aged 60 if he or she serves less than than 22 years.

Taff Rail
22/06/2012 at 07:05

The main problem this country suffers from is successive governments of highly educated selfserving individuals who lack the will and intellegence to implement the knowledge that they have gained at the expence of their parents. The Nepalese should not have been given the right to settle in this country. Their pensions should have been adjusted to allow them to enjoy the same standard of living as our British troops. No matter which party is in we seem to be governed by a poorly thought out series of knee jerk reactions

UKR
21/06/2012 at 16:00

UKR: That's exactly what a well-known Elizabethan playwright and poet did too. Keep up the good work!

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
21/06/2012 at 14:19

at least the gurkha's have extra funding - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18514425

Aldershot Born
20/06/2012 at 21:42

Ha Ha your both very funny - the person that digs at me on here has been spelling my name wrong for weeks!

But the facts are that the Gurkha soldier signed a contract of work - which they were happy to do so when they signed up for the armed forces and yet years after expect many in the uk to pay them more in pension because they cannot live on what they have for many years.

If they had a problem with this then maybe they should not of joined the armed forces in the first place.

Their are many in this country that have had cuts in their pensions and many in this country who were in the armed forces have paid more and more tax when they retired, many of the pensions the uk retired armed forces get these days are a lot lower than they expected and yes they also fought for th uk, so if others win the rights to higher pensions then should this not mean those who retired years ago in uk the same?

I doubt very much!

Aldershot Born
20/06/2012 at 19:05

Well spotted BlisteringBarnacles!, when it comes to spelling my excuse is that I am re-writting the English language

UKR
20/06/2012 at 13:47

What's an accussation? Oh, you misspelled a word while complaining about someone's spelling. That's a classic!

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
19/06/2012 at 21:40

Reply @Aldershot Bore:

More fatuous hyperbole from you.

unhappy (now disgusted)

Some should learn to spell before throwing accussations at me!

And what I say is the truth it just that others don't like the truth!

Aldershot Born
18/06/2012 at 17:40

@Aldershot Bore:

More fatuous hyperbole from you.

unhappy (now disgusted)
18/06/2012 at 15:06

I was also quoted earlier this year the following:- The British Government has also decided that everyone who lives in our country is entitled to a basic level of benefits - so the elderly ex-Gurkhas claim that basic level - because they often have no pension from the British Army after they were made redundant. Even when they have an Army Pension, it is often very small because it was calculated on the basis that 5 years of a Gurkha's service was equal to only 1 year of a British solder's service - so they still need to claim Pension Credit to bring their income up to the basic level.

Its just the shame that the british goverment do not treat the uk resident the same, when they work for years pay full uk tax and yet get a kick in the teeth, and i bet their are many like me that have been treated the same way!

Aldershot Born
18/06/2012 at 09:18

Reply to :- @UKR, Mai, Dan B, Aldershot Born et al

Here's why I passionately stand up for the Gurkhas and others unjustly treated:

"Evil only triumphs when good people do nothing."

Anyone leveling accusations of me being a Gurkha/Nepalese then I proudly accept it given their unswervingly loyal, honorable and glorious service to Britian for 200 years. Thus those who no longer want to retain their services: that'll be Britian's loss. Cut your own nose to spite your face if you want to!!!

unhappy (now disgusted)

Just like to say that no one is stating that they are against the Gurkha's just others trying to make more out of this story.

All I would like to say is if the Gurkha's get this pension then others that have been in armed forces like the british that don't get the full pensions themselves for fighting for their own country get treated the same, but i doubt that very much as us British allways get treated different, and yet were in the armed services for more years and yet that doesn't count does it.

Certain people on here would rather help others from foreign lands that knew exactly what they signed for when they were working for the british army - and yet they signed this peice of paper [contract of work] and years down the line expect the british people to pay them more because they cannot live on the money they get well I am sorry but most of us in the uk are also suffering, try living on nothing when you get cancer - told you are not ill enough to get benefits nor are you fit for work - which ever way you look you cannot get any help - but doesn't matter that you worked full time for more than 30 years and yet the time you need help no one wants to help, yet we are expected to pay the Gurkha's more money because they say they cannot live on what they do get, well i am sorry but a contract of work means exactly that, no one made you join the army so why complain years latter over something that you knew you were going to get before you signed that contract of work!!