GURKHA COURAGE and LOYALTY ABUSED YET AGAIN!
It is not only the Gurkha's that this government is cra&&ing on from a great height, very recent changes to the War Pensions Scheme mean War Disablement Pensioners could now lose over £90 per week of their War Pensions should they be so unfortunate to fall ill and need to claim Incapacity Benefit (or the new fangled Employment and Support Allowance- ESA).
The changes were 'sneaked' in with the annual meagre uprating of War Pensions by Statutory Instrument and came into effect from the 6th April 2009. It means in future, War Pensioners who claim the 'Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation' (ALSO) and whether due to their accepted condition or a non connected accident/illness, become too ill to continue their post service employment, even short term, they will lose this allowance should they need to put in a claim for Incapacity Benefit/ESA. Previously War Pensioners could keep this allowance if claiming Incapacity Benefit/ESA and it was quite often increased as ones earnings had in effect dropped.
As in order to maintain ones National Insurance Contribution record when sick, one does need to claim Incapacity Benefit/ESA, then it does have quite serious financial implications for War Pensioners. Particularly when one realises that in order to claim the Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation, one needs an accepted percentage disability of at least 40%, so we are looking at some quite seriously disabled former servicemen/women and who, despite their injuries, have managed to get/stay in post service employment.
As an example of these changes, for a 40% disabled War Pensioner, who receives the maximum 'ALSO' allowance (due to low post service earnings) if he/she becomes too ill to work, it can mean not only do they lose their normal earnings (and get for at least 13 weeks only £64.30 per week ESA in exchange) but also lose upto £91.44 per week from their overall War Pension (a double whammy in effect).
Quite why this has been changed (and why in particularly at this moment in time) I have no idea. However I have my suspicions and although the government frequently refer to the doubling of payments under the newer Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, I bet they do not shout from the rooftops about this disgusting change that affects 'old scheme' War Pensioners, ie those from WW2, The Falklands, Northern Ireland, Gulf War 1 etc.
The Statutory Instrument enacting this change to Article 15 of the Service Pensions Order 2006 is here by the way:
The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions (Amendment) Order 2009 No. 706
Perhaps a passing journo may like to pick up this issue. I am sure with the recent publicity on the Gurkha issue, should the public realise that those who have fought in past campaigns are now getting shafted, then it will be another nail in the coffin of this government.
The changes were 'sneaked' in with the annual meagre uprating of War Pensions by Statutory Instrument and came into effect from the 6th April 2009. It means in future, War Pensioners who claim the 'Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation' (ALSO) and whether due to their accepted condition or a non connected accident/illness, become too ill to continue their post service employment, even short term, they will lose this allowance should they need to put in a claim for Incapacity Benefit/ESA. Previously War Pensioners could keep this allowance if claiming Incapacity Benefit/ESA and it was quite often increased as ones earnings had in effect dropped.
As in order to maintain ones National Insurance Contribution record when sick, one does need to claim Incapacity Benefit/ESA, then it does have quite serious financial implications for War Pensioners. Particularly when one realises that in order to claim the Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation, one needs an accepted percentage disability of at least 40%, so we are looking at some quite seriously disabled former servicemen/women and who, despite their injuries, have managed to get/stay in post service employment.
As an example of these changes, for a 40% disabled War Pensioner, who receives the maximum 'ALSO' allowance (due to low post service earnings) if he/she becomes too ill to work, it can mean not only do they lose their normal earnings (and get for at least 13 weeks only £64.30 per week ESA in exchange) but also lose upto £91.44 per week from their overall War Pension (a double whammy in effect).
Quite why this has been changed (and why in particularly at this moment in time) I have no idea. However I have my suspicions and although the government frequently refer to the doubling of payments under the newer Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, I bet they do not shout from the rooftops about this disgusting change that affects 'old scheme' War Pensioners, ie those from WW2, The Falklands, Northern Ireland, Gulf War 1 etc.
The Statutory Instrument enacting this change to Article 15 of the Service Pensions Order 2006 is here by the way:
The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions (Amendment) Order 2009 No. 706
Perhaps a passing journo may like to pick up this issue. I am sure with the recent publicity on the Gurkha issue, should the public realise that those who have fought in past campaigns are now getting shafted, then it will be another nail in the coffin of this government.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, the only bit of that link I understood was:
I bet she did.
Her Majesty considers it expedient to amend the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006(1).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see another Gurkha soldier (or in UK Gov terms perhaps that should read 'problematic would-be immigrant') has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Afghanistan.
Another nail in the disgraceful UK Gov policy, but tragically at cost of a full complement of nails in the young man's own.
May he rest in peace, with the respect and gratitude of us all.
Another nail in the disgraceful UK Gov policy, but tragically at cost of a full complement of nails in the young man's own.
May he rest in peace, with the respect and gratitude of us all.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD site now saying
"One soldier from the Royal Gurkha Rifles and one member of the Royal Military Police killed in Afghanistan"
That makes 4 soldiers killed in 3 days...RIP....editted as it was 4 soldiers on 1 day
"One soldier from the Royal Gurkha Rifles and one member of the Royal Military Police killed in Afghanistan"
That makes 4 soldiers killed in 3 days...RIP....editted as it was 4 soldiers on 1 day
Last edited by November4; 8th May 2009 at 18:11.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sorry to hear about another 4 dead today, no matter what the Ghurka contingent.
If it's true that Ms Lumley 'pulled a fast one' by claiming G.Brown "had promised her" a rethink on the Ghurkas when he may not have, that was a masterly stroke which even a politician will have trouble reversing out of.
I'm not a fan of ANY politicians - people here seem to have short memories about the forces' treatment under the Tories - but I might be convinced to vote for Joanna Lumley.
If it's true that Ms Lumley 'pulled a fast one' by claiming G.Brown "had promised her" a rethink on the Ghurkas when he may not have, that was a masterly stroke which even a politician will have trouble reversing out of.
I'm not a fan of ANY politicians - people here seem to have short memories about the forces' treatment under the Tories - but I might be convinced to vote for Joanna Lumley.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political Statements
" People here seem to have short memories about the Forces treatment under the Tories".
If you wish to make Political Statements then do it on a thread devoted to that purpose. I have long memories about the Forces treatment under Governments of both Persuasions. I remember the then CAS asking me on a flight what I thought about the new Tory Government in 1979 giving the Forces the other 14 % deferred by the Labour Government from the 31 % Pay rise which the Pay Review Body had recommended. We had a RN Lt Cdr on 32 Sqn whose children were getting free School meals because his income was so low.
We can all produce statistics to reinforce our our point of view on Politics - this is not the Forum in which to air them.
If you wish to make Political Statements then do it on a thread devoted to that purpose. I have long memories about the Forces treatment under Governments of both Persuasions. I remember the then CAS asking me on a flight what I thought about the new Tory Government in 1979 giving the Forces the other 14 % deferred by the Labour Government from the 31 % Pay rise which the Pay Review Body had recommended. We had a RN Lt Cdr on 32 Sqn whose children were getting free School meals because his income was so low.
We can all produce statistics to reinforce our our point of view on Politics - this is not the Forum in which to air them.
Double Zero:
I suspect that spinning rather than pulling was in play, and from the other end of the wicket at that. Might account for the determined way that she ambushed the hapless Woolas and dragooned him into eye contact confirmation of a full review of Gurkha Rights of Residence, an agreed date for that, and favourable treatment of the 1500 appeals. Absolutely fabulous! Wonderful if she could extend her interests to all HM Forces, in particular those that Pete286 instances above. Is there no limit to the depths to which these minions will descend when dealing with servicemen and women? Shameful apparatchiks, yet devoid of all shame.
If it's true that Ms Lumley 'pulled a fast one' by claiming G.Brown "had promised her" a rethink on the Ghurkas when he may not have, that was a masterly stroke which even a politician will have trouble reversing out of.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gurkha, 87, who won the VC returns war medals to Downing Street after being refused free hospital care
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:46 PM on 25th June 2008
A Gurkha awarded the highest military award for gallantry in the face of the enemy was at the forefront of a demonstration today to promote the rights of more than 2,000 of the soldiers to stay in Britain.
Tul Bahadur Pun VC, 87, a Second World War veteran who is now in a wheelchair, delivered a boardful of medals, including an MBE, to Downing Street in protest over the treatment of Gurkha soldiers.
A London hospital refused to treat him for his heart condition, claiming he owed thousands of pounds in unpaid medical bills.
Disgust: Gurkha Regimental Sergeant Major Pun Tulbahadur returns his medals to Downing Street.
And Rightly so! How disgracefull!.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:46 PM on 25th June 2008
A Gurkha awarded the highest military award for gallantry in the face of the enemy was at the forefront of a demonstration today to promote the rights of more than 2,000 of the soldiers to stay in Britain.
Tul Bahadur Pun VC, 87, a Second World War veteran who is now in a wheelchair, delivered a boardful of medals, including an MBE, to Downing Street in protest over the treatment of Gurkha soldiers.
A London hospital refused to treat him for his heart condition, claiming he owed thousands of pounds in unpaid medical bills.
Disgust: Gurkha Regimental Sergeant Major Pun Tulbahadur returns his medals to Downing Street.
And Rightly so! How disgracefull!.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe one of our moraly stagnant MPs could put Mr Pun's expenses through on their own expense accounts. They seem to be able to bleed us all dry for everything else these days.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghurkas launch High Court battle over pay
Ex-Gurkhas were today launching a High Court battle against the Government, claiming they have suffered racial discrimination with pay and conditions worse than those of other British soldiers.
In a human rights challenge which could cost the Ministry of Defence £2 billion, lawyers will argue in 20 test cases that the famed Nepalese fighters serving with the British Army retired on inadequate pensions.
Today their legal team, which is led by Prime Minister's wife Cherie Booth QC, was lodging papers at the High Court in London, but there will be no actual hearing in court.
The test case applications will go before a judge within the next few weeks to decide whether the Gurkhas have an "arguable case" to justify a full application for judicial review at a later date.
Since the 1947 Triparite Agreement between India, Nepal and the UK, their recruitment into the Army has been regulated by that agreement.
It is argued that the agreement links the remuneration of Gurkhas, who have fought for the British for almost 200 years, to the Indian Army's pay code, resulting in a crucial disparity in the payment of salaries and pensions between the Gurkhas and other British troops.
Gurkha lawyers say that, as a result, over 30,000 men retired from service without any pension, or adequate pension, and suffered dire poverty as a result.
They say many wives have not been fairly compensated for the loss of husbands due to military service, and many families still do not know what has happened to their husbands and sons.
Padam Gurung, president of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen Association, said: "The Gurkhas have been loyal servants of the British for 196 years, and have lost between 50,000 and 60,000 lives.
"All we ask is not to be treated as inferior human beings and to suffer discrimination.
"We want recognition that we have fought loyally as British soldiers and demand only the same rights.
Why deny them?
Ex-Gurkhas were today launching a High Court battle against the Government, claiming they have suffered racial discrimination with pay and conditions worse than those of other British soldiers.
In a human rights challenge which could cost the Ministry of Defence £2 billion, lawyers will argue in 20 test cases that the famed Nepalese fighters serving with the British Army retired on inadequate pensions.
Today their legal team, which is led by Prime Minister's wife Cherie Booth QC, was lodging papers at the High Court in London, but there will be no actual hearing in court.
The test case applications will go before a judge within the next few weeks to decide whether the Gurkhas have an "arguable case" to justify a full application for judicial review at a later date.
Since the 1947 Triparite Agreement between India, Nepal and the UK, their recruitment into the Army has been regulated by that agreement.
It is argued that the agreement links the remuneration of Gurkhas, who have fought for the British for almost 200 years, to the Indian Army's pay code, resulting in a crucial disparity in the payment of salaries and pensions between the Gurkhas and other British troops.
Gurkha lawyers say that, as a result, over 30,000 men retired from service without any pension, or adequate pension, and suffered dire poverty as a result.
They say many wives have not been fairly compensated for the loss of husbands due to military service, and many families still do not know what has happened to their husbands and sons.
Padam Gurung, president of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen Association, said: "The Gurkhas have been loyal servants of the British for 196 years, and have lost between 50,000 and 60,000 lives.
"All we ask is not to be treated as inferior human beings and to suffer discrimination.
"We want recognition that we have fought loyally as British soldiers and demand only the same rights.
Why deny them?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a trifle worried when I changed (with the agreement of the Moderator) the title of this thread; I thought I may have overstepped the mark.
I failed to take into account the ability of the current UK Government to incapacitate itself with self inflicted wounds.
I failed to take into account the ability of the current UK Government to incapacitate itself with self inflicted wounds.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to the above post; I see that the BBC are reporting that the Widow of Cpl Kumar Pun (killed in Afghanistan) was visited by a "jobsworth" the day after his death and informed that she and her family had "no right to stay in UK.
Let us not "shoot the messenger" - the fault is in Government Policy and its implementation.
Let us not "shoot the messenger" - the fault is in Government Policy and its implementation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the commons.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been blamed for the Government's Commons defeat over the Gurkhas
Blame for the Government's humiliating Commons defeat over the Gurkhas was laid squarely on Jacqui Smith last night.
Labour MPs openly criticised the beleaguered Home Secretary's bungling of a vote on giving retired soldiers and their families the right to live in Britain.
She was accused of failing to persuade around 100 backbenchers to oppose a Liberal Democrat motion which called for immigration rules to be scrapped for thousands of the veterans.
As a result, Gordon Brown's dwindling authority was dealt another heavy blow when his Government suffered a crushing 21-vote defeat.
Twenty-seven Labour rebels voted with the opposition and dozens more abstained.
The vote on Wednesday was not binding on the Government, but the Prime Minister was forced to order a climbdown by announcing a review of the rules, which restrict the right of up to 36,000 Gurkhas to settle in the UK.
The crisis arose after the High Court ruled last year that it was unlawful to prevent Gurkhas who had served in the British Army before 1997 from living here.
Their comrades who served later are allowed in because the Nepalese regiment has been based in Britain since 1997. Before then it was in Hong King.
After months of dragging their feet Ministers finally unveiled new guidelines last week - and campaigners immediately complained that they would open the door to only 100 Gurkha veterans who were war heroes or had been badly injured.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been blamed for the Government's Commons defeat over the GurkhasBlame for the Government's humiliating Commons defeat over the Gurkhas was laid squarely on Jacqui Smith last night.
Labour MPs openly criticised the beleaguered Home Secretary's bungling of a vote on giving retired soldiers and their families the right to live in Britain.
She was accused of failing to persuade around 100 backbenchers to oppose a Liberal Democrat motion which called for immigration rules to be scrapped for thousands of the veterans.
As a result, Gordon Brown's dwindling authority was dealt another heavy blow when his Government suffered a crushing 21-vote defeat.
Twenty-seven Labour rebels voted with the opposition and dozens more abstained.
The vote on Wednesday was not binding on the Government, but the Prime Minister was forced to order a climbdown by announcing a review of the rules, which restrict the right of up to 36,000 Gurkhas to settle in the UK.
The crisis arose after the High Court ruled last year that it was unlawful to prevent Gurkhas who had served in the British Army before 1997 from living here.
Their comrades who served later are allowed in because the Nepalese regiment has been based in Britain since 1997. Before then it was in Hong King.
After months of dragging their feet Ministers finally unveiled new guidelines last week - and campaigners immediately complained that they would open the door to only 100 Gurkha veterans who were war heroes or had been badly injured.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking one SHOULD shoot the messenger, then work one's way up...and, Cazatou, this was not even mentioned when the Tories kept the status quo going; I'm not pro' this lot either, but get your facts right. End.
OOPs that was merely coining a popular phrase about the messenger, like " here's my expenses chit, the one with all the zero's on the end " ; does that mean I'm going to be deported ?
OOPs that was merely coining a popular phrase about the messenger, like " here's my expenses chit, the one with all the zero's on the end " ; does that mean I'm going to be deported ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DZ
This Government has been in power since the General Election of 1st May 1997 - the year that the Gurkha Brigade re-located from Hong Kong to UK.
This Government has been in power since the General Election of 1st May 1997 - the year that the Gurkha Brigade re-located from Hong Kong to UK.