Gurkhas refused full settlement rights

I certainly had in mind when posting my Dads service with Gurkhas in Burma and this as you rightly said makes it a emotional issue although to some on this forum emotions are not allowed And I will always remember many years ago as a youg teenager being on holiday in sussex while there dad took me to the airborne museum thats a post in itself but after we went into Aldershot town and me Mum and Dad went into a shop while i waited outside, whilst stood there I just watched all the soldiers walking by Paras, craphats( thats you Stefan and Urqh) and then walking right by me was a Gurkha now to me as a army barmy teenage going to the airborne museum and all these paras walking by was great but then a Gurkha this band of men my Dad had spoke of so fondly but made to me quite clear thier abiities walks past me well bugger me cherry on the cake time

 

Here's

 

Well I wouldnt let them 2 in the country.

 

I'd gladly swap them for a few charvs from around here.

~Steve

 

Right We're all agreed...Treat em like commonwealth troops....or why not? Did I take a vote or did I just assume...ah well..

So all come in apart from Drews 2 mates...Sorted..Now who's going to tell Jaquie and Jack and that wooley guy?

 

Who is the wooley guy- and as for drews mates I already been and marked down two charvs for disposal to make room for them.

~Steve

 

Wooly is one of the immigration ministers I think, I dont know, I heard his name in passing...Drews mates are in then...but no glasses...Actually...they could end knife crime overnight....thats not a knife son...this is a knife...Yep let the Ghurkas in, all of em...crime rate goes down, but lots of teens wandering round without ears.

 

Few? Don't you mean all?

 

Thanks Urqh

Found the bugger, Philip James Woolas-bet he had a hell of a life at school. Looks a standard politician.

a mate said to me the other day that his great uncle was once it a weapons pit at night when he felt a Kukri slid under his chin and a hand feeling the shape of his face and helmet, then with a smart double tap on his head, the gurhka was gone- bet he did a brown job

~Steve

 

The rules are being changed to include more gurkhas, just not all of them. Prior to this anyone who served in the Gurkhas after 1997 had the right to stay, now there are several conditions under which those who served before 1997 can earn the right to stay.

Just to throw a spanner into the works, as I understand it part of the reason for the 'post-1997 rule' is the tripartide pact with India and Nepal, under which we were allowed to recruit Gurkhas as long as they didn't get any better treatment than their Indian counterparts. Ergo they were specifically told they couldn't remain in the UK (as part of their joining contract) and so on. This agreement is still having an impact today, it isn't nice but it has clearly been difficult to get any exceptions made to the treaty.

 

Thats true Stefan, but why was it possible to ignore the tripartate pact for those after 1997? Sutely an amenement was made to the aceptance of all parties at that time, I.E. India, Nepal and UK. i would be less than charitable to say that that was the time to change the rules for all, as they were indeed changed for anyone serving after 1997....The rules at the time applied to all until they were changed at that time...so why the discrepancy..

Its a bit riich of me to have a go, I'm not really...I do understand..I dont sympathise though with govts who have been inolved...both red and blue...In my own emotional world they all get in and bring your families too.

But I do also understand that no one has yet stated the figures, the amounts with families etc...This should not be a problem if welded into a fairer immigration policy with priority clearly stated for various individuals, especially those with a living tie or bond,and then based on service to the crown and then Commonwealth. I do tie into thar Iraqi and Afghan interpretors...but draw the line at Afghan poice and army obviously..

I dont think anyone realises the figures being bandied about are on one side too small and swept under the carpet, and on the other a realisation that the numbers who might apply due to a free for all will impact on us unless we look at other areas of immigration including our signed aggreements with UN and care for refugee status etc.

As for India and Nepal, I still dont know what status to put the Ghrukas who only served out of Hong Kond as a depot, but served and paid in all but hands by the Sultan of Brunei as a political sop.

Me I'd still let em all in, but knowing this may effect other areas of immigration policy.

 

Stuff this incompetent government that has put us all in the red for years to come. Just a load of asswipes who are on the take, the Gurkha's have every right to be here and I don't give a stuff about what the fecking regulations say.

We got bags of room for them to stay here.

The general feeling on other forums is the same, kick the scum out and make way for those who have done there bit.

 

Too bloody true....Sepoys, Burma rifles, Sikhs, Hong Kong defence force, Malay guards, Kenya rifles, All or anyone related to anyone who served...There you go, thats all thats needed, a change in policy to allow all who've worn the uniform and served under kings and queens regulations, and their families.

We still got room?

 

While I can see Richard, and Urqhs point of view I think we need to look at this sensibly. Gurkhas we should let those who want to stay, stay and as urqh says how do you then treat the other commenwealth troops who have served Queen and country over the years,the Gurkhas served in the British army and I mean those aside from this India, Nepal agreement they fought for us where as those in India or Nepal did not and in different circumstances anyway.The commenwealth troops Urqh mentioned did in most cases serve the Queen as soldiers of another country so they fought with but not as part of the British army (feel free to correct me at any time) thus this distinguishes between the two.Now as for a matter of room ,Richard who I hearby appoint immigration secretary if you can give us some figures and tell us just who to throw I mean deport from GB then my friends we have a plan, and I love it when a plan comes together answers on a postcard for who knows the quote I doth give

 

Career politicians for a start.

 

I can see my apoinment was a wise choice choose your own wages and you can have 4 homes now what job do we give Urqh.............Defence secretary

 

Its quite simple, the Ghurkas should either be treated as a special case, as it seems the country wants them to be, and Gordon after all keeps telling us he listens or they should be attached to the same rules and regulations as serving commonwealth forces in our OWN ranks. Fijians? What do we do with them? Anyone know, as they seem to make up quite a large part of our understrengh battalion coy's at the moment...and paras inlluded.

As for Richard...I'm pulling his plonker...I supprt the case of Ghurkas being a seperate and completely different case to any others. Its that simple, but I give the govt wriggle room on commonwealth serving as at present and only ask they be brought up to that level of care and consideration. Thats enough and will allow anyone who wants to come in come in.

Indian, Burmese etc, yep they were serving own nations...but we know thats not the case in reality..They served us and did our bidding and our officers bidding, same with Aden and all others, they were not doing anythig without our command and pushing. No wriggle room was ever allowed there. There then is the counter argument, and I have no truck with it, but some will. If not commonwealth soldiers then they are mercanaries...thats ok by me...doesnt preclude entry just makes em an even specialer special case.

You do though all realise that the Ghurkas have their own little mafia in the British armed forces...well known like the Light infantry mafia for fighting their corner..both even more powerful in govt circles than the Guards Mafia when it comes to release of battalions etc..

All govt including tory have had the chance to change policy on Ghurkas, none did till 97 to allow some leeway, tories never did a thing for them in the past lets not forget that.
In defence cuts of 87 and cold war defence cuts of 91 onwards, the Ghurkas were always looked on by tory defence ministers as the easy cut, as not allowed at time to serve as units in either Germany or Northern Ireland. Depot being Hong Kong, and if not for Brunei, could have easily have at one time disbanded the whole lot of em if it wasnt for the Ghurka mafia within Whitehall...

Gordon though is being cowardly, he knows this will highlight immigration policy as a whole and wants to move on.

 

The whole case behind 97 changes that now happilly effect other commonwealth soldiers serving in our ranks was brought on because of the handing back of Hong Kong and we then left with a massive quandry over serving Ghurkas....that was the time and place to change it for all..but the changes were not a govt being chartiable or meaning well in any way shape or form more so that something had to be done with Hong Kong dissapearing.

 

£7.50 ph
One home will do me.

Urgh would be better as a new minister post...Cheer up you miserable sod Minister.

 

As I understand it Fijians are allowed to but generally don't want to, considering the way they are treated, how wealthy they are and so on when they return to fiji, I'm not sure why they would want to stay on this rather damp little island.