Connect with us

Published

on

Joanna Lumley has called on the government to meet the “brave and loyal” Gurkha veterans who are currently on hunger strike opposite Downing Street over their pensions.

Protesters have been camped in Whitehall for nine days now.

According to the Support Our Gurkhas website, the hunger strikers are campaigning for equal pensions for Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and are not eligible for a full UK Armed Forces pension.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Hunger-striking ex-Gurkha: ‘I don’t care if I die’

The actress and campaigner said ministers “cannot praise our veterans to the high heavens when it suits them, but ignore them and condemn them to poverty when it doesn’t”.

Gurkhas are Nepalese-born soldiers who have been recruited into the British army since 1815, fighting most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia.

Ms Lumley led a successful campaign to get Gurkhas settlement rights in Britain.

The 75-year-old’s father was a major in the Gurkha Rifles and she was born in India and moved to England as a child.

More from Politics

She said: “Seeing such brave and loyal Gurkha British Army veterans feeling they have no option but to take the drastic step of entering a hunger strike will be deeply upsetting to the vast majority of the public who understand the special place that all veterans have in our hearts, in our thoughts and the life of the nation.

“Only a deep sense of injustice could drive these brave and respectful souls to this point.

“At the heart of this matter is how we value those who have offered, and sometimes given, the ultimate sacrifice to protect our way of life and to keep us safe.

“I urge the government to meet these veterans and to cut through the morass of detail surrounding the complexity of the various pension schemes and find some way to address the injustices highlighted.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Act soon or there won’t be any of us left’

But defence minister Leo Docherty said the Gurkhas had declined to meet him.

“I was disappointed the Satyagraha protest group declined to meet with me and hope they will engage positively in the Gurkha veterans dialogue the Defence Secretary hosts in early September,” he said.

“We greatly value the contribution that Gurkhas make and consider the 1948 Gurkha Pension Scheme to be objectively fair and equitable, but I am always willing to speak with veterans and help resolve any such welfare concerns.”

Sky News has asked the Ministry of Defence for clarification on when the offer of a meeting was declined.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told Sky News on Friday that he was happy to meet the Gurkhas.

But in a sign that the government will not meet the demands of the protesters, he added that no government “of any colour” had made retrospective changes to pensions similar to the ones the Gurkhas are calling for.

“I am very happy to meet any Gurkha. My father fought alongside the Gurkhas in Malaya in the 1950s, it is a pretty remarkable group of people,” the defence secretary told Kay Burley.

“The group of people currently protesting are groups affected by the change by the Labour government in 1997 to 2003.

“This was about people who are under a 1947 pension, it is a very small group of Gurkha pensioners, they had different advantages in their pension scheme in that old scheme.

“That scheme said that you got it after 15 years when a British soldier got it after 22, but there is a difference and they feel that difference needs to be made up.

“That is not the same as the Gurkhas of today or the Gurkhas after 2003, they get exactly the same pensions as British serving personnel, but of course no government of any colour, Labour or Conservative, or coalition, has ever retrospectively changed pensions, that has not been the case.”

Gurkhas who served from 1948 to 2007 were members of the Gurkha Pension Scheme (GPS).

Ben Wallace has warned non-state actors are able to learn how to make chemical weapons online
Image:
The defence secretary Ben Wallace has said he is happy to meet the Gurkhas

This was closed in 2007 and all serving Gurkhas or those who retired after 1 July 1997 were given the option of transferring to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS).

The date 1 July 1997 is when the Gurkhas became based in the UK and no longer classified as a Far East-based force.

Under the GPS, Gurkhas qualify for an immediate pension after 15 years of service, while for armed forces as a whole it is 22 years.

This can mean some Gurkhas will have been receiving pension payments for more than 20 years before many British soldiers of the same rank and length of service qualify for payments as part of the AFPS.

The GPS was based on the Indian Army model and was designed for Gurkhas retiring back to Nepal, where the cost of living is much lower than in the UK.

However, many of those Gurkhas will have taken up the right to settle in the UK following the change of policy under the Labour government in 2009.

Pensions under the GPS were increased by between 10% and 34% in 2019, while £25m was invested in medical and healthcare facilities in Nepal for Gurkha veterans.

A public consultation on the latest changes to the scheme ended in March and the government is currently considering the size of the uplift that will be applied to the pensions.

The issue has been the subject of long-running campaigning over the years.

Responding to calls for reform in 2010, Labour defence minister Kevan Jones described the GPS as “good and fair” and said the MoD’s position on the matter was “legally and morally sound and beyond reproach”.

The exclusion of Gurkhas who served before 1 July 1997 has also been challenged in the courts, with the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2016 that the move was “objectively and reasonably justified”.

Continue Reading

Politics

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

Published

on

By

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

A lower court ruling will stand in a case involving a Coinbase user who filed a lawsuit against the IRS after the crypto exchange turned over transaction data.

Continue Reading

Politics

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

Published

on

By

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

REX Shares will launch the first US staked crypto ETF this week, giving investors direct exposure to SOL with staking rewards.

Continue Reading

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

on

By

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Situation in Gaza ‘utterly intolerable’

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Read more:
‘All I see is blood’
‘It felt like earthquakes’
MPs want Ukraine-style scheme for Gazans

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Routes for Palestinians ‘restricted’

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

Palestinians inspect the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people that was hit in an Israeli air strike, in Gaza.
Pic Reuters
A Palestinian woman sits amid the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pics: Reuters

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets. As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Dozens dead in Gaza after Israeli strikes

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Gaza disinformation campaign is deliberate’

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

Continue Reading

Trending