UKH

A team from Imagine Nepal, led by Mingma Gyalje Sherpa, who has scaled Everest five times and K2 twice, was forced to abort their ascent last week in poor conditions.

The company pledged to return next year with ladders, drills and bolts to make an “almost 100 per cent safer” route.

Full article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/everest-climbers-take-steps-to-tame-kill...

Can imagine there will be a lot of of opposition to this?!  

Not sure what their plan is (and you can't really tell from the tiny diagram), but I'd imagine they're going to put a ladder up the rock wall on one side of the bottleneck to make it easier to climb that section, and take climbers away from the avalanche path?

Not that I've been to high altitude or ever will, but still - if there's climbable rock there, how about just f*cking climbing it?

Probably won't happen. 

Far more interesting news is that Nirmal Purja didn't have any need for a ladder, and has now done 11 8000m peaks this season. Truly incredible. 

Damn straight Mr. Arkle. The man is a machine.

Apparently Nirmal Purja is in the British Special Forces , a Gurka in the SAS. Tough lad!

For "outstanding work in mountaineering" ....apparently 

Something to do when it rains in the himalaya 😉

Like a really long version of the Via Corda Alpina?

Either ban all fixing of any kind or install a chairlift. 

A practice run on the mighty Mount Snowdon?

I love the term "almost 100% safer". So only slightly more than 1 in 8 instead of 1 in 4 summiteers will die!

I’ve seen the 1 in 4 stat before. Do you know if it means “for every 4 people who summit, 1 person dies somewhere on K2” or “out of every 4 people who summit K2, 1 doesn’t make it down alive”?

An aside to the thread, but who are the Gurkhas, and why are they still part of the UK's armed forces, 50 years or so after the demise of almost all of its empire?

Why wouldn't they be?

er, if I knew who they were I could better answer your question. If they are foreign nationals, why do they want to be in our armed forces?

The Ghurkas are an armed force drawn from the Nepalese hill tribes. During the Anglo-Nepalese war of 1814 -16 they made such an impression on the British forces that they were later recruited by them and fought on the side of the British during the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

Many Nepalis would give their eye teeth to serve in the Ghurkas not just for the honour but for the very nice pension they get.

As a traveller in Nepal I got treated far better once they knew I was British and "give my regards to Sandhurst" was commonly said. Many of the ex-ghurkas use their pension to set up tea houses on the trails

So they are mercenaries?

Well if you take that view, so are all soldiers. 

No they are not. The attraction of an income and a pension to impoverished people is easily understood. It just seems an anachronism that our government sees fit to employ Nepalese as soldiers, and that their government permits it.

They've fought for the British for hundreds of years and given their lives in conflicts that have had nothing to do with them for our benefit, including in both world wars.

Given the immense sacrifices they've made in aid of the freedom you currently enjoy, retaining their service is the least we can do for them. The government have already tried screwing them over in various ways, and I personally think the way they've been treated in recent times is disgusting.

Retaining their services so that they can continue to give their lives for conflicts that have nothing to do with them for our benefit is not very nice. Better, move on and invest in Nepal.

There’s around 1400 Fijians serving in the Armed Forces as well.

Really? I didn't know. Are we relying for our defence on the exploitation of impoverished people?

I assume their own thoughts and feelings don't apply then?

The Gurkhas (the race) see serving in the British Armed Forces as a huge honour and privilege.

There are many different K2 fatality statistics scattered around the web, with no way of telling which are correct or (as in this case) how they're meant to be interpreted. Seems to be a lot of copy + paste going on.

Honestly, apart from the money, do you think it is in their best interests to be a mercenary wing of our army?

It used to be due to the difficulty in recruiting enough home grown soldiers.

Apparently the Fijians have an affinity with Scottish regiments And At one time one in ten soldiers serving in Scottish regiments was from Fiji.

Money, pension, the right to live in the UK and the opportunity to follow the family tradition in many cases I suspect, in the same way that many in this country follow the family tradition and join the Army.

Until recently I was hoping to join the Infantry, and the Gurkhas would have easily been my first choice of regiment if it weren't for the incredible competition to commission into the regiment. They are incredible and highly professional soldiers with a fantastic attitude, and it suits both us and them. I don't see the problem.

I'll start a new thread when I get home from work as it's an interesting topic of conversation and is derailing the original point of this thread.

Are you suggesting a K2 steam train? If so, then kudos

One of the maths teachers in our school was a retired Gurkha; aged I suppose about 55, small and wiry, he walked the mile uphill to work every morning bareheaded at a terrific pace in all weathers, head down and briefcase under his arm, greeting everybody politely whom he passed (which was everybody). We used to make half-amused, half admiring comments about him; but nobody would ever, ever have poked fun, because we all could imagine what he may have been up to, and what he may have gone through, in WW2.

I find your reply deeply insulting

As you will. I am simply wondering why we continue to take advantage of the impoverishment of a foreign people to staff our armed services.

So your argument is that the ghurkas are mercenaries because they get paid and a pension, but all other soldiers who get paid and a pension are not mercenaries. 

Yes, by my definition of a mercenary as being a soldier works for a foreign power. I don't think that is contentious.

What I am surprised by is that the employment of foreign people in our armed services is not seen by those here as continued colonialism by another name. We get defended, they get to walk through the minefields. And a pension, which is peanuts to us.

To which I reply you do not understand the situation from the point of view of the Nepali people.

My view would be that is a symbiotic relationship where by each party gets something it wants out of it. Do not see any taking advantage of as you so put it.

It might be worth pointing out that Nepal was never under colonial rule

Here is the Nepal-Britain treaty of 1923

1) Nepal and Britain will forever maintain peace and mutual friendship and respect each other's internal and external independence.

2) All previous treaties, agreements and engagements, since and including the Sugauli Treaty of 1815, which have been concluded between the two Government are hereby essentially cancelled, except so far as they may be altered by the present Treaty.

3) As the preservation of peace and friendly relations with the neighbouring States whose territories adjoin their common frontiers is to the mutual interests of both the High Contracting Parties, they hereby agree to inform each other of any rupture such friendly relations, and each to exert its good offices as far as may be possible to remove such friction and misunderstanding.

4) Each of the High Contracting Parties will use all such measure as it may deem practicable to prevent its territories being used for purpose inimical to the security of the other.

5) In view of the longstanding friendship that has subsisted between the British Government and the Government of Nepal and for the sake of cordial neighbourly relations between them, the British Government agrees that the Nepal Government shall be free to import from or through British India into Nepal whatever arms, ammunition, machinery, warlike material or stores may be required or desired for the strength and welfare of Nepal, and that this arrangement shall hold good for all times as long as the British Government is satisfied that the intentions of the Nepal Government are friendly and that there is no immediate danger to India from such importations. The Nepal such arms, ammunition, etc., across the frontier of Nepal either by the Nepal Government or by private individuals. If, however, any convention for the regulation of the Arms Traffic, to which the British Government may be a party, shall come into force, the right of importation of arms and ammunition by the Nepal Government shall be subject to the proviso that the Nepal Government shall first become a party to that Convention, and that such importation shall only be made in accordance with the provisions of that Convention.

6) No Customs duty shall be levied at British Indian ports on goods imported on behalf of the Nepal Government of immediate transport to that country provided that a certificate from such authority as may from time to time be determined by the two governments shall be presented at the time of importation to the Chief Customs Officer at the port of import setting forth that the goods are the property of the Nepal Government, are required for the public services of the Nepal Government are not for the purpose of any State monopoly or State trade, and are being to Nepal under orders of the Nepal Government, The British Government also agrees to the grant in respect of all trade goods, imported at British Indian ports for immediate transmission to Kathmandu without breaking bulk en route, of a rebate of the full duty paid, provided that in accordance with arrangements already agreed to, between the two Governments, such goods may break bulk for repacking at the port of entry under Customs supervision in accordance with such rules as may from time to time be laid down in this behalf. The rebate may be claimed on the authority of a certificate signed by the said authority that the goods have arrive at Kathmandu with Customs seals unbroken and otherwise untampered with.

7) This Treaty signed in the part of the British Government by Lieutenenat-Colonel W.F.T. O'Connor, C.I.E., C.V.O., British Envoy at the Court of Nepal and on the part of Nepal Government by General His Highness Maharaja Sir Chandra Shumsher Junga Bahadur Rana, G.C.B, G.C.S.I., G.D.M.G., G.C.V.O., D.C.I., Thong-lin Pimma Kokang- Wang-Syan, Prime Minister and Marshal of Nepal, shall be ratified and the ratification shall be exchanged at the Kathmandu as soon as practicable.

We are much richer than them. The dynamic is that they are  tempted to face the fire for our benefit at minimal cost to us. It is is still exploitation.

I am no expert in development,  but surely there are more sophisticated ways by which we could nurture Nepalese society, if we are invited to be involved, than by asking them to fight for us.

I am sorry but the old we are rich so we must be exploiting them argument is bullshit.

You just don't get it THEY WANT TO FIGHT FOR US

By your token every grunt soldier is being exploited because it might be the only way for them to earn a living. So we should ponly employ soldiers who come from stable middle class backgrounds?

The only logical argument is to do away with armed forced altogether that way no one gets exploited.

Secondly what do you mean by "nuture Nepalese society"? To me that just sounds patronising and elitist. Nepal is, by our standards, a poor country, it has always been a poor country, due mainly to geography and the vast majority of its population being subsistance farmers but has made vast strides since the 1950's. Ecconomically it relies heavily on foriegn aid through the Nepal Developement Fund but aside from that its principle ecconomy is argriculture. It's two main resources are tourism and hydroelectric power. It also relies on the export of clothing and leather goods. Politically it creates a buffer zone between India and China.

You've never served or have the first clue how the Armed Forces work, do you?

As far as I'm aware, they're on the exact same pension scheme these days as everyone else, which up until recently was one of the major reasons for people choosing to serve; it was an excellent pension scheme. Before that, under the Gurkhas Pension Scheme they could draw a pension immediately upon retirement after 15 years service - by their early thirties essentially. They'd have been drawing a pension for over twenty years before a British soldier of the same rank and length of service would be able to.

If you want to keep arguing about it, go do some research. You're currently talking out of your arse.

I feel Mark that we are wasting our time on one who is happy to sit in their bubble of ignorance and not do any proper research.

Sorry for hi-jacking the main thread

'Walking through minefields' is a figure of speech. Am I so clueless as to think that serving in the Armed Forces might not involve danger?

Our own soldiers' pension is peanuts to the nation, as is their wage bill. The same pension, to the Nepali, is worth much more. You seem to miss the point, which is not that the Gurkhas don't get what to them is a worthwhile sum, but that it is such a huge sum that it is hard to refuse. Thus they can be our squaddies instead of the Etonian (not) 17 year olds from this country. 

Our GDP per capita is more than 10 times that of Nepal. Quite possibly, Hans Rosling could tell you that the disparity was greater in the past but still, an order of magnitude is a great deal and lends itself to exploitation, even if most individuals on either side might not see it that way. 

It boils down to whether you think that asking poor people to serve in our Armed Forces and risk their lives and limbs for your sake is ethical or not. I don't.

OK, talking about "take advantage of the impoverishment of a foreign people" better not buy any clothes made in Bangladesh then. Sweatshop workers there earn less than US$1 a day

Let's set the entry bar at at least a two bedroom semi within Greater London. 

..or at $2.3 a day, like it is in Nepal. [is that fair? - that is, the GDP per capita per day. The UK figure is over $100].

Those concerned about research on this topic might want to read Poor Economics by Banergee and DuFlo to get an idea of where I am coming from.

I think the stat that got banded around was that for every 4 successful summits there was 1 death. Some people wrongly interpreted this as 'if 4 people summit, 1 of them will die on the descent', when actually it meant that if 12 people successfully climbed the mountain in a season, the death toll for that year would be somewhere around 3. No idea how accurate it is based on current stats though. 

Indeed, another example of how we exploit impoverished countries - glad you see the link.

So... The ladder and bolts on K2 then?

i can’t help thinking this deserves a different name these days, although I see it is also know as a war for independence and a struggle for freedom. 

But they get paid the same as British soldiers, about $28k. How is that exploitation?

Will have rusted into oblivion before the UKC collective remember what we were arguing about

It's funny, that. One of the recruitment problems we have is actually that the bulk of our officers still appear to be from wealthy, privately-educated backgrounds. And don't tell me 'yes, of course they are, becuase they don't put themselves in harm's way ordering the cannon fodder to charge the trenches' because it simply isn't true. A core belief in our Army is that to order your men to do something you're not willing to do yourself is cowardice of the highest order, and thus officers in the fighty arms of the Army are there on the front line, directly in harm's way with their men, taking the same risks. Have a read up on Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Jones VC for an example. And they're not joining the fighty arms because they can't do anything more clever - the teeth arms are the most competitive of the Army to commission into.

I also know several highly intelligent people who've given up successful careers to join the Army. One wrote embedded code for medical devices, and gave it all up to join the Paras. As a squaddie.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/gurkhas-707987?new=9026828#x902...

Do you also wonder much why we get Polish people to clean our toilets, and Czech’s to work our restaurant floors on zero hour contracts? Or is that ok?

Let's say the Republic of Erewhon emerges as a global superpower, with a GDP 100 times that of the UK.  A private in the Erewhon Army earns £250k p.a.  The army is recruiting, and looks favourably upon applicants from the UK.  I sign up.  Am I being exploited?

BTW, the Erewhonese are white.  And I am not....

Eloquently put. However I think you miss the point. The problem lies with the low base level and standard of living in Nepal.

There are plenty of British mercenaries fighting around the world but I would have thought they could have earned a decent wage in the UK, unlike the options available to Ghurkas. Hence the exploitation.

I tend to disagree there. In my view exploitation is paying people peanuts to do mind numbing or dangerous jobs, with poor work environments. I don't see paying people the going rate in this country to do a difficult job as exploitation.

Paying someone more than they would get by staying put is not exploitation. Paying someone less than you would pay anyone else and treating them poorly is exploitation (ie like the foriegn construction workers employed by the Saudis)

So don't offer the Nepalese decent wages because it's a disproportionate amount of income to what they would expect from local jobs? 

Exploitation would be paying them low wages because they desperately need money. Offering people good wages for risky work is just free-market capitalism. Take mining for example - risky jobs, often in areas with little other work. Are they exploiting the townspeople? When they leave and the town's economy dies, you don't see everyone rejoicing that they are free from exploitation...

Sorry, I mis-spelt.  It's Erehwon, of course.

http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/ToMjGpjpXMFPshSYGLm/giphy.gif

I moved from the UK, where I earned shit money in the NHS, completely unable to save any money, with limited prospects for career progression (unless taking a more senior position for the same money counts). I'm now living comfortably in Norway, doing the same job and am happier all round. By your definition though I'm probably being exploited, despite the move being totally proactive on my part.

Ahh, but unlike the poor Nepalese folk, you are well educated enough to make your own decisions.  That’s the inference I’m drawing behind the “exploitation” point upthread.  Unless there is “mis-selling” going on I can’t see it as exploitation.

Morally speaking, I see a lot more issues around the Sherpas.

Two things.

One, we are offering people not merely a job, but one that intrinsically  involves risk of injury and death and one that too few Brits want to do. Two, the money on offer is such that to the people concerned, it is a fortune. So, since money talks, they would be tempted to do it. This must be against their better judgement since I guess they, their mothers and families value their lives and limbs as much as we do.

In my view, this is exploitation, despite the money on offer.

Joanna Lumley successfully campaigned for the Gurkhas to have residency rights in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign . I don't see that they are being exploited in any way - no one forces them to join the Gurkhas, and they join on the same terms as any British national joins the army.

That misses the point, which is that it is wrong to use money to tempt people in poverty into danger. That's all.

How about my limbs then? Or must my desire to join the Infantry be against my better judgement too? Or just your better judgement?

I don't understand how you can form the opinion you've formed despite not knowing the first thing about the Gurkhas - including even who they are up until a couple of days ago.

What about young blokes from Blackpool on the dole? I would argue that the Gurkhas get a significantly better deal than them, since at the end of their period of service they are entitled to take up residence in a substantially wealthier country.

K2 via ferrata? Sounds fantastic! Will I need any more kit than my fall arrester? I guess a helmet might be a good idea?

I think you should be a bit more careful about using such an inflammatory term which many people will find grossly insulting, particularly given the sacrifices that so many Gurkahs have made preserving all our freedoms. Over 250,000 fought against the Axis powers in WWII with over 30,000 casualties.

Many nations have components of their armed forces comprising of foreign nationals. And the UK has has commonwealth troops as well as Gurkhas for a very long time.

In WWII US pilots joined the RAF pre 1941, as did the Poles?

The Vatican has the Swiss Guard, the US has people from all over.

Worldwide here is a list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_militaries_that_recruit_foreigners

You're obviously desperately overcome with the need to feel "pity" for a group of people you couldn't be more detached or clueless on. A case of bored middle class-ness.

I take it you're not writing this on a computer because if you are then you are exploiting impoverished foreign workers, kept that way by greedy multinational corporations mining in a hole in the ground searching for rare earth metals etc. They see little benefit from you writing on the internet from a position of priviledge and hypocracy. We all do things in life which subjugate others unfortunately and I'm not sure there is a way to prevent it at the moment. A pension, being well paid and being able to provide for their family is not a bad trade off considering otherwise they would be living in destitution...