Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "84-year-old gurkha gets to stay in uk"
In addition to the enormous manpower made available there were many personal gestures on the part of the Minister and Court of Nepal. Large sums of money for the purchase of weapons and equipment, including money for the provision of fighter aircraft during the Battle of Britain, were presented as gifts from Nepal. Considerable sums of money were also donated to the Lord Mayor of London during the Blitz for the relief of victims in the dockland area. An equally generous response was made to a variety of appeals for aid – all this from a country which was then, and still is by western standards, desperately poor.
The spirit of this friendship can best be illustrated by the reply made to the Prime Minister of Nepal to the British Minister in Kathmandu after the fall of France in 1940. When Britain stood alone.
Permission was sought to recruit an additional 20 battalions for the Gurkha Brigade, and for Gurkha troops to be allowed to serve in any part of the world. This was readily granted by the Prime Minister who remarked, “Does a friend desert a friend in time of need? If you win, we win with you. If you lose, we lose with you”. The whole of the Nepalese Army was again placed at the disposal of the British Crown.
Doesn't all this go against the spirit of your first posts?
BUT, I go back to an earlier posting of mine, what Im REALLY interested in is the thinking that went in to the original declined request. What weight did the moron attach to the fact this guy HAD fought for King and Country and was awarded the highest military honour in the world. How is this NOT demonstrating a link back to this country?
Mailman
In addition to the enormous manpower made available there were many personal gestures on the part of the Minister and Court of Nepal. Large sums of money for the purchase of weapons and equipment, including money for the provision of fighter aircraft during the Battle of Britain, were presented as gifts from Nepal. Considerable sums of money were also donated to the Lord Mayor of London during the Blitz for the relief of victims in the dockland area. An equally generous response was made to a variety of appeals for aid – all this from a country which was then, and still is by western standards, desperately poor.
The spirit of this friendship can best be illustrated by the reply made to the Prime Minister of Nepal to the British Minister in Kathmandu after the fall of France in 1940. When Britain stood alone.
Permission was sought to recruit an additional 20 battalions for the Gurkha Brigade, and for Gurkha troops to be allowed to serve in any part of the world. This was readily granted by the Prime Minister who remarked, “Does a friend desert a friend in time of need? If you win, we win with you. If you lose, we lose with you”. The whole of the Nepalese Army was again placed at the disposal of the British Crown.
This is at the heart of the problem - are the Gurkhas mercenaries or equal partners in the British Army- & it looks like they are using the discrimination legisation to force the changes
but the original terms of service were quite clear
The Gurkhas are an established part of the British Army and have been since 1947 (although their history extends back another 100 odd years further back than that).
And being a contractor I know you will be fully conversant with contracts where sections are added that you have no control over. Somehow I doubt when India and Britain was negotiating independence that the Gurkhas actually had any say in whether they would be or not be second class soldiers in the British Army.
BUT, I go back to an earlier posting of mine, what Im REALLY interested in is the thinking that went in to the original declined request. What weight did the moron attach to the fact this guy HAD fought for King and Country and was awarded the highest military honour in the world. How is this NOT demonstrating a link back to this country?
Leave a comment: