My position in the Royal British Legion is strictly non-political and I try to keep it that way. The role of the President is to be a person of standing' in the community, to raise the profile of the Legion and to advise the executive committee as needed. I promised when I took up the role I would not exploit it in any way for political purposes and I don't. Unfortunately, some other people, of opposing political views, do try and exploit my position with this sort of comment, however, I note they lack the courage to put their own name to their comments.As for the Gurkhas, I have not read the local papers this weekend as I have been away so don't know what they say. The facts are these:
I was very concerned about the Government proposals and refused to vote for them. After a frantic afternoon of negotiation the Home Secretary recognised the concerns that some of us on the Labour benches had and made a series of concessions. These were summarised in a letter that was circulated about an hour BEFORE the vote. That letter promised that no Gurkhas would be deported, that the facts and figures being quoted would be reviewed and a new set of rules drawn up to deal with the pre-1997 service Gurkhas in Nepal. In other words, everything that campaigners were asking for was conceded before the vote so I was then able to vote for the Government. Unfortunately, for the Government some of my colleagues did not get the letter in time and voted against which is why the vote was lost.
I would also add that Lord Brammall, former Chief of the Defence Staff who served with the Gurkhas wrote an article in the Independent against the idea that the Government should change its position. Here is the link for those who really want to be informed on this issue:
I wonder, does 'anonymouse' also think Lord Brammall should resign from the Legion?
Steve Ladyman
