Gurkhas amongst those to be made redundant...

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:52 am

In latest round of defence cuts says Phil Hammond , as further 20,000 or so army redundancies are to be made.

And after such loyalty from the Gurkhas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25854374

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:54 am

So it would be fair if all other regiments had redundancies so long as the Gurkhas were exempt?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:43 pm

Lets just hope the work of Joanna Lumley will stand and that the government will not try to throw these Gurkhas who are to made redundant out of this country or deny them benefits should they be unable to find work.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:46 pm

Joy Division wrote:Lets just hope the work of Joanna Lumley will stand and that the government will not try to throw these Gurkhas who are to made redundant out of this country or deny them benefits should they be unable to find work.

Still waiting for you to explain why they should be exempt from redundancies affecting other regiments.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:35 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:Lets just hope the work of Joanna Lumley will stand and that the government will not try to throw these Gurkhas who are to made redundant out of this country or deny them benefits should they be unable to find work.

Still waiting for you to explain why they should be exempt from redundancies affecting other regiments.

Surely you can not blame one for thinking the Gurkhas could just be an easy target , seeing as it took both Joanna Lumley and a labour government to secure many Gurkhas the right to live here.

by nicko Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:50 pm

if gurkhas are to be made redundant no way should they be made to return home.

they should be given living accomadation and helped to find other jobs,allthough a lot of previous un-employed Gurkhas are quickly snapped up by security firms.
mr Cameron is saying he will allow refugees from Syria here,if so he can look after our gurkhas.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:24 pm

Where does it say Gurkhas are the only target?

Why should they be given services like accommodation that other redundant soldiers do not get?

I am not saying they should be sent any where incidentally and I support and admire Joanna Lumleys work for them which was correcting a bad injustice.

I simply do not want to see the pendulum swing so far the other way that ordinary soldiers are denied things extended to Gurkhas. All of those serving in the armed forces deserve the same support and recognition and none of them get what they should. Dont make this about one regiment make it about all the injustices faced by those prepared to put their lives on the line for this country.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:56 pm

nicko wrote:if gurkhas are to be made redundant no way should they be ma

de to return home.

they should be given living accomadation and helped to find other jobs,allthough a lot of previous un-employed Gurkhas are quickly snapped up by security firms.
mr Cameron is saying he will allow refugees from Syria here,if so he can look after our gurkhas.

I totally agree Nicko, those should stuck their neck out and fought for our country deserve all the help and respect they can get , but I doubt this government will try to help them find any work, and pity the. If they have to go on the dole as they will be labelled as benefit scroungers, egged on by this government.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:59 pm

sphinx wrote:Where does it say Gurkhas are the only target?

Why should they be given services like accommodation that other redundant soldiers do not get?

I am not saying they should be sent any where incidentally and I support and admire Joanna Lumleys work for them which was correcting a bad injustice.

I simply do not want to see the pendulum swing so far the other way that ordinary soldiers are denied things extended to Gurkhas. All of those serving in the armed forces deserve the same support and recognition and none of them get what they should. Dont make this about one regiment make it about all the injustices faced by those prepared to put their lives on the line for this country.

Where did I say that Gurkhas were the the only target?, I'm going by past government 'policy', surely you can not blame one for being a tad suspicious after the way past Governments have treated them?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:13 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:Where does it say Gurkhas are the only target?

Why should they be given services like accommodation that other redundant soldiers do not get?

I am not saying they should be sent any where incidentally and I support and admire Joanna Lumleys work for them which was correcting a bad injustice.

I simply do not want to see the pendulum swing so far the other way that ordinary soldiers are denied things extended to Gurkhas. All of those serving in the armed forces deserve the same support and recognition and none of them get what they should. Dont make this about one regiment make it about all the injustices faced by those prepared to put their lives on the line for this country.

Where did I say that Gurkhas were the the only target?, I'm going by past government 'policy', surely you can not blame one for being a tad suspicious after the way past Governments have treated them?

Unfortunately I live too close to ordinary military people - both family wise and geography wise. These redundancies are not new - they have been happening to ordinary people for a while without massive objections - but throw the word Gurkha into the mix and all of a sudden people are shouting about it.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:39 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Where did I say that Gurkhas were the the only target?, I'm going by past government 'policy', surely you can not blame one for being a tad suspicious after the way past Governments have treated them?

Unfortunately I live too close to ordinary military people - both family wise and geography wise. These redundancies are not new - they have been happening to ordinary people for a while without massive objections - but throw the word Gurkha into the mix and all of a sudden people are shouting about it.

I think thats because they showed us incredible loyalty and were dont appear to have ever treated them very well.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:56 pm

Let's be clear I have been very unhappy with many of the forces cuts. This is wrong and I think the army has been cut too deeply.

Let me be clearer still Labour would have cut deeper and have no track record at being good to forces quite the reverse in fact.

Still hypocrisy runs deep with the left on here.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:12 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Unfortunately I live too close to ordinary military people - both family wise and geography wise. These redundancies are not new - they have been happening to ordinary people for a while without massive objections - but throw the word Gurkha into the mix and all of a sudden people are shouting about it.

I think thats because they showed us incredible loyalty and were dont appear to have ever treated them very well.

Are they any more loyal than the other guys being made redundant?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:23 pm

sphinx wrote:
NemsAgain wrote:

I think thats because they showed us incredible loyalty and were dont appear to have ever treated them very well.

Are they any more loyal than the other guys being made redundant?

Sphinx do you understand traditions?

The Gurkha's have a long history of loyalty to the British, which goes back years, being that its Regiment is one of the most decorated units in the British army and 13 of its soldiers have been awarded the Victoria Cross. When you have such a long tradition of men signing up to the British army far from their own homes then it is not only sad to see this happen but a fear this tie between the Gurkha's and Britain may one day disappear. Yes many nations have served in the British army, but not as long as this regiment ad yes also others are being made redundant but many do not want to see this tradition disappear, hence surely you can see by many of the posts here how proud people are of not only their achievements but also a big history of serving together that might one day disappear. The reason they were recruited in the first place was because the British suffering heavy casualties in the invasion of their country, so much so that the East India company signed a peace treaty with them which has allowed our nation to recruit from the Nepalese army's ranks, which speaks volumes about their bravery.

So not only on our side but also the Nepalese this is a sad day to see their numbers cut, and yes it is sad to see other units cut but people are very proud of what the Gurkha's have done in their service for Britain.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:45 pm

I am fully aware of the history didge.

However there is as much danger in loosing the traditions if the rest of the army are cut down to much as well.

You want to know the reason so many other regiments dont have such long histories? Its because they have already been shrunk, amalgamated and destroyed.

If putting the Gurkha name on it causes people to realize there are other long established loyal regiments being terminated - other loyal hard long serving working men are being kicked out then all very good - but if people think this all about just one thing then we are all losers.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:53 pm

sphinx wrote:I am fully aware of the history didge.

However there is as much danger in loosing the traditions if the rest of the army are cut down to much as well.
I already stated that as well, but people have it seems much pride when ever you mention the Gurkha's showing how this more than many others matters to people

You want to know the reason so many other regiments dont have such long histories? Its because they have already been shrunk, amalgamated and destroyed.
I already know about this too, but that shows more than anything how valued the Gurkha's are more than other regiments

If putting the Gurkha name on it causes people to realize there are other long established loyal regiments being terminated - other loyal hard long serving working men are being kicked out then all very good - but if people think this all about just one thing then we are all losers.

Again it is sad to see any regiment go, but what you failed to see here on this is how much it means to many people even more so that the biggest fact is they are born from a native land proud to serve Britain and have done so for years, this point I guess eludes you

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:07 pm

No it doesnt elude me - it just saddens me that so many people know more about a regiment from halfway around the world and value it more than their local regiment that bears their own name.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:10 pm

sphinx wrote:No it doesnt elude me - it just saddens me that so many people know more about a regiment from halfway around the world and value it more than their local regiment that bears their own name.

Why is it sad, one of the reasons it because they are renowned for their bravery!

Tell me who would you rather lose your best striker Thierry Henry or Lee Dixon in defense when Arsenal dominated?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:38 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:No it doesnt elude me - it just saddens me that so many people know more about a regiment from halfway around the world and value it more than their local regiment that bears their own name.

Why is it sad, one of the reasons it because they are renowned for their bravery!

Tell me who would you rather lose your best striker Thierry Henry or Lee Dixon in defense when Arsenal dominated?

Didge how the hell can any man be braver than face getting killed in defence of your country?

People know about the bravery of the Gurkhas - but there will be lads local to them doing the same job and being equally as brave and because it does not get the same publicity the only people who every know are the lads friends and relatives.

Yes the Gurkhas are brave - but so are other soldiers and other regiments.

As for football - not quite sure what your reference is besides which I am a Liverpool gal.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:43 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Why is it sad, one of the reasons it because they are renowned for their bravery!

Tell me who would you rather lose your best striker Thierry Henry or Lee Dixon in defense when Arsenal dominated?

Didge how the hell can any man be braver than face getting killed in defence of your country?

People know about the bravery of the Gurkhas - but there will be lads local to them doing the same job and being equally as brave and because it does not get the same publicity the only people who every know are the lads friends and relatives.

Yes the Gurkhas are brave - but so are other soldiers and other regiments.

As for football - not quite sure what your reference is besides which I am a Liverpool gal.

i am not denying there have been plenty of brave British people and in fact many nationalities serving in the British army but again as a people their regiment is a cut above many save a few for decorations and bravery, which is why many great deeds are recounted but also some of most astounding bravery you are ever to read about, which is why you are missing the point, as a whole this nation of people are renowned warriors just like the Maoris and Fijians, which captures the mind of many people, that is what I am trying to get across, to you. Britain has had many brave warriors, but this is about a people who are very fearless as a whole and brave to boot!

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:07 pm

Didge do you realize if you tried describing "a people" as fearful as a whole and cowardly to boot you would be screamed down as being racist?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:11 pm

sphinx wrote:Didge do you realize if you tried describing "a people" as fearful as a whole and cowardly to boot you would be screamed down as being racist?

Never said cowardly?

Yes I understand that but I said they are brave warriors and certain people have been fearful of them as a fighting force. I doubt all are brave either, but of those who have served they have gained this reputation of being very brave and courageous.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:32 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Didge do you realize if you tried describing "a people" as fearful as a whole and cowardly to boot you would be screamed down as being racist?

Never said cowardly?

Yes I understand that but I said they are brave warriors and certain people have been fearful of them as a fighting force. I doubt all are brave either, but of those who have served they have gained this reputation of being very brave and courageous.

No you did not say cowardly you said the opposite - I was simply being ironic that it is acceptable to describe a race in positive terms even if the implication is that they make other races look "worse" than themselves but it is not acceptable to describe a race in negative terms even if the implication is they make other races look "better" than themselves.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:36 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Never said cowardly?

Yes I understand that but I said they are brave warriors and certain people have been fearful of them as a fighting force. I doubt all are brave either, but of those who have served they have gained this reputation of being very brave and courageous.

No you did not say cowardly you said the opposite - I was simply being ironic that it is acceptable to describe a race in positive terms even if the implication is that they make other races look "worse" than themselves but it is not acceptable to describe a race in negative terms even if the implication is they make other races look "better" than themselves.

Are but I said of those who had served had gained a reputation, I can see how my wording may have come across the way you think its is, but I also believe not all would be brave. So that is me just expressing a view on those who are brave, I certainly do not think as a race they are superior. I would say they have gained a reputation, but I could not vouch and say all are, as I can only go by what some have done! I see though how what I said would see as you say, hence why I am now explaining myself

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:46 pm

Again I say chaps it would have been worse under Labour who faced with the need to cut would have gone to the forces first. As they would have overspent big style by now the Gurkhas wold have probably been decimated.

That said Didge Sphinx is right IMO units shouldn't be exempt on nationality or indeed the contribution of the past. It's future conflicts they have to be fit for. If that means keeping more Ghurkhas well and good ut only for operational reasons. My experience of Labour is they cut the troops and leave the civil service unscathed.

There was a civil servant for every soldier last time I checked give or tae a couple of thousand.

I might add a civil servant suing for hurt feelings is considerably more likely to get a higher payout than a soldier who loses both legs.

JD is one stirring hypocrite that's for sure

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:50 pm

Clarkson wrote:Again I say chaps it would have been worse under Labour who faced with the need to cut would have gone to the forces first. As they would have overspent big style by now the Gurkhas wold have probably been decimated.

That said Didge Sphinx is right IMO units shouldn't be exempt on nationality or indeed the contribution of the past. I future conflicts they have to be fit for. If that means keeping more Ghurkhas well and good ut only for operational reasons. My experience of Labour is they cut the troops and leave the civil service unscathed.

There was a civil servant for every soldier last time I checked give or tae a couple of thousand.

I might add a civil servant suing for hurt feelings is considerably more likely to get a higher payout than a soldier who loses both legs.

JD is one stirring hypocrite that's for sure

Never made any claim on being exempt, my view point has been why people feel strongly about the Gurkhas being cut, more than they do about other regiments, because like the SAS, SBS, Paratroopers, Royal Marines, they have made themselves legends by the their heroic acts. I also think our soldiers should be paid far more money than they are and looked after for life if they suffer injuries, so you are missing my point here

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:58 pm

Clarkson wrote:Again I say chaps it would have been worse under Labour who faced with the need to cut would have gone to the forces first. As they would have overspent big style by now the Gurkhas wold have probably been decimated.

That said Didge Sphinx is right IMO units shouldn't be exempt on nationality or indeed the contribution of the past. It's future conflicts they have to be fit for. If that means keeping more Ghurkhas well and good ut only for operational reasons. My experience of Labour is they cut the troops and leave the civil service unscathed.

There was a civil servant for every soldier last time I checked give or tae a couple of thousand.

I might add a civil servant suing for hurt feelings is considerably more likely to get a higher payout than a soldier who loses both legs.

JD is one stirring hypocrite that's for sure

How the hell am I a stirring hypocrite Drinky?

I have sympathy for the Gurkhas after the way previous Tory governments were packing them off back home despite fighting on our side, what is so wrong with that?

If a man is prepared to sacrifice his life for this country, don't you think we at least owe him a bed in this country?

Really Drinky, you need to start showing some respect for folk like that.

Had it not been for Joanna Lumley and Labour, no doubt the lot of them would have been sent back their countries.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:59 pm

"Operational reasons" you've missed mine.

I think given conflicts are in hotter regions they are well suited.

I am well displeased with the cuts they are unworthy of a Tory administration. May I remind you my youngest is a serving soldier and I was TA for some years as a younger man.

My son returned from Afghanistan last year and many of his mates have since left though voluntarily.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:02 pm

JD Hmmmmph!

You have little respect for anything I think is valuable and I do think the Gurkhas are highly valuable.

My point is your precious Labour party has absolutely no track record with the forces NONE!!!!!!! Thatcher was idolised in the forces when I was TA.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:06 pm

Clarkson wrote:JD Hmmmmph!

You have little respect for anything I think is valuable and I do think the Gurkhas are highly valuable.

My point is your precious Labour party has absolutely no track record with the forces NONE!!!!!!! Thatcher was idolised in the forces when I was TA.

Thatcher was idolised Drinky?, from some in your regiment maybe, but that was not the general opinion throughout the army.

I do respect some folk Drinky, so that's just not true.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:07 pm

The Ghurkhas should be given a special dispensation from these cuts. Their terms of service were changed when they were granted new rights a few years ago which included their maximum length of service being extended from 15 years to 22 years which is in line with the rest of the British Army. So having given them these new rights we now want to take them away from some of them and sling them out at a time when they believed that they would be required or able to serve for longer.
When you strip the uniforms of these young men who came here from another country to fight for whatever cause our government saw fit then they are invisible to the public as ex Ghurkha soldiers and just become immigrants in the eyes of some and fair game for the same treatment that awaits so many of the immigrants that come here. I wouldn't wish to throw them into the mix in that way because it's difficult enough as it is to settle in a country that is not your birthplace so just leave their numbers to reduce to acceptable levels through natural retirement.
Not a lot to ask is it?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:10 pm

A very good point Irn, though see both sides to this, but you make an excellent case on this.
I dont think either this is a left or right thing as all would cut the armed service accept UKIP, but we cannot afford things as they stand, we cannot afford to really get involved in conflicts these days either. It is a shame as to me we have one of the best trained forces in the world, but we have to be realistic here when money is tight.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:19 pm

Clarkson wrote:JD Hmmmmph!

You have little respect for anything I think is valuable and I do think the Gurkhas are highly valuable.

My point is your precious Labour party has absolutely no track record with the forces NONE!!!!!!! Thatcher was idolised in the forces when I was TA.

That is absolutely bollocks because if you check back you will find that Thatcher and her government had already put in place cuts of up to a third for the Royal Navy just before Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. If Argentina had just waited one more year then we wouldn't have been able to mount a task force to win back the Islands she practically gave away. On the very morning of the invasion redundancy notices were being handed out to the workers at the Naval dockyards only for them to be pulled back at lunchtime to enable the fleet to be made ready for sea. Carrington resigned over the whole affair and she should have gone as well.

And who scrapped our carriers and Sea Harrier aircraft leaving us with no ability to mount any sort of task force that could ever do anything similar.?

You can't trust the Tories on Defence

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:22 pm

[[/i]

If asked what I think the weakest areas of this govts policies are I would say this review.

The difference is Bu when I challenge you on some very very weak areas of the last govt you accept no weaknesses.

e.g Labour deceit over a referendum. You are a crib sheet disinformation spreader mate, not a debater.

If you honestly believe things would have been better for the forces under Labour you are delusional.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:30 pm

Clarkson wrote:[[/i]

If asked what I think the weakest areas of this govts policies are I wold say this review.

The difference is Bu when I challenge you on some very very weak areas of the last govt you accept no weaknesses.

e.g Labour deceit over a referendum. You are a crib sheet disinformation spreader mate, not a debater.

If you honestly believe things would have been better for the forces under Labour you are delusional.

I can assure you that I do accept that there were weaknesses. I never thought that Brown was the right man to be PM. He was awkward in the media spotlight and tried too hard to be just an ordinary guy but when I see the propaganda that is being pumped out by the Tories when the record shows that their record was even worse then I'll say so and I''l probably prove it most of the time.

Back to your bunker you go.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:56 pm

You say he was awkward but make no reference to his disastrous policies and his outright deceits.

See what I mean. You couldn't face the truth if it punched you in the face.

I'll give you this, you are relentless in your ability to ignore facts and absolutely loyal to someone who would have shafted you without a moments thought.

Consider the Rochdale woman staunch Labour who he branded a racist then berated his assistant.

Not a nice man at all and your hero worship of such a despicable man makes me question everything you say.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:16 pm

Clarkson wrote:You say he was awkward but make no reference to his disastrous policies and his outright deceits.

See what I mean. You couldn't face the truth if it punched you in the face.

I'll give you this, you are relentless in your ability to ignore facts and absolutely loyal to someone who would have shafted you without a moments thought.

Consider the Rochdale woman staunch Labour who he branded a racist then berated his assistant.

Not a nice man at all and your hero worship of such a despicable man makes me question everything you say.

Any disastrous policies that came from Labour were no worse than the even worse disastrous policies that came from the Tories. See what I mean - you didn't even read what I said.

He shouldn't have said what he said whilst his mike was still on. But the Tories have their own track record of racist abuse - cite the Burley Nazi incident in the news at the moment and his explanation being accepted by the Tory hierarchy.

I give you facts, Drinky. You just pump out the same old propaganda.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:19 pm

Clarkson wrote:You say he was awkward but make no reference to his disastrous policies and his outright deceits.

See what I mean. You couldn't face the truth if it punched you in the face.

I'll give you this, you are relentless in your ability to ignore facts and absolutely loyal to someone who would have shafted you without a moments thought.

Consider the Rochdale woman staunch Labour who he branded a racist then berated his assistant.

Not a nice man at all and your hero worship of such a despicable man makes me question everything you say.

Here's something despicable for you Drinky.....

http://order-order.com/2013/12/19/shamed-pictures-of-mps-laughing-in-food-bank-debate/

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:22 pm

And just to add - You can't trust Tories on Defence and I showed you why.

by Irn Bru Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:23 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Clarkson wrote:You say he was awkward but make no reference to his disastrous policies and his outright deceits.

See what I mean. You couldn't face the truth if it punched you in the face.

I'll give you this, you are relentless in your ability to ignore facts and absolutely loyal to someone who would have shafted you without a moments thought.

Consider the Rochdale woman staunch Labour who he branded a racist then berated his assistant.

Not a nice man at all and your hero worship of such a despicable man makes me question everything you say.

Here's something despicable for you Drinky.....

http://order-order.com/2013/12/19/shamed-pictures-of-mps-laughing-in-food-bank-debate/

Good point JD. How they forget.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:27 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Here's something despicable for you Drinky.....

http://order-order.com/2013/12/19/shamed-pictures-of-mps-laughing-in-food-bank-debate/

Good point JD. How they forget.

Indeed Irn,,,amazing how some can put the boot into us for respecting what the Gurkhas have done for Britain, considering they ain't British themselves.

by Sponsored content