Kevan Jones

#2
There's a few of us on here who believe (through 1st hand experience in dealing with Gurkhas) that Kevan Jones has been pretty much spot on with this. Not so much in the attacks on JL but the in the way the Gurkhas have been hoodwinked over in Nepal. Whoever is making the claims about the 'promised land' over here ought to take a long hard look at themselves.
I could go into the stats about our Gurkha caseload since Jan but it's depressing reading.
 
#3
jack-daniels said:
There's a few of us on here who believe (through 1st hand experience in dealing with Gurkhas) that Kevan Jones has been pretty much spot on with this. Not so much in the attacks on JL but the in the way the Gurkhas have been hoodwinked over in Nepal. Whoever is making the claims about the 'promised land' over here ought to take a long hard look at themselves.
I could go into the stats about our Gurkha caseload since Jan but it's depressing reading.
That is as may be, but I'm not convinced that it falls to Her Lumliness to explain government policy to the Gurkhas - particularly in the light of her not being a Minister, nor an MP, nor directly involved in drafting the legislation. My point being that Jones chooses to attack Lumley rather than those who are so responsible. Why might that be?
 
#4
You're right it isn't. I think his gripe is that she was quite vocal initially but has been silent since.
Trust me on this, even some of our Nepalese friends aren't too impressed with her on this.
 
#5
Unsworth said:
jack-daniels said:
There's a few of us on here who believe (through 1st hand experience in dealing with Gurkhas) that Kevan Jones has been pretty much spot on with this. Not so much in the attacks on JL but the in the way the Gurkhas have been hoodwinked over in Nepal. Whoever is making the claims about the 'promised land' over here ought to take a long hard look at themselves.
I could go into the stats about our Gurkha caseload since Jan but it's depressing reading.
That is as may be, but I'm not convinced that it falls to Her Lumliness to explain government policy to the Gurkhas - particularly in the light of her not being a Minister, nor an MP, nor directly involved in drafting the legislation. My point being that Jones chooses to attack Lumley rather than those who are so responsible. Why might that be?
Because GAESO would be made to look stupid!
 
#6
I seem to recall that Jones also started the attacks on Dannatt's 'expenses' - and then denied all knowledge, having been fingered by Ainsworth.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
If its a question of the integrity of JL or Brown and any of his cronies then I don't think it will take anyone very long to work out who is lying on this issue.


"Unsworth:

That is as may be, but I'm not convinced that it falls to Her Lumliness to explain government policy to the Gurkhas - particularly in the light of her not being a Minister, nor an MP, nor directly involved in drafting the legislation. My point being that Jones chooses to attack Lumley rather than those who are so responsible. Why might that be?"

I do think that the charity should be doing more to explain the facts of life to anyone in Nepal thinking of coming here. Its not something I would trust the Government to do. You are talking about people who turned down a holder of the Queens Commission and the VC on the grounds that he lacked ties to this country.

I doubt the government actually know what their policy is - except of course to get revenge on JL because she showed them up to be the vermin they are.
 
#10
jack-daniels said:
There's a few of us on here who believe (through 1st hand experience in dealing with Gurkhas) that Kevan Jones has been pretty much spot on with this. Not so much in the attacks on JL but the in the way the Gurkhas have been hoodwinked over in Nepal. Whoever is making the claims about the 'promised land' over here ought to take a long hard look at themselves.
I could go into the stats about our Gurkha caseload since Jan but it's depressing reading.
Indeed, and other figures, especially those connected with UK based Service Charities have said essentially the same thing as Kevan Jones, but, as they aren't associated with the Labour Party, they haven't had the same vitriol directed at them.
 
#11
Chaps,
My point is, is that JL did exactly what was required to show the Govt. that they were getting it totally wrong and the situation was rightly changed...BUT....I doubt that she or the Govt knew what was coming.
I'm no fan of this Govt whatsoever and believe that the Gurkhas have more right to be here than 99.9% of the rest of the immigrant population but as Kevan Jones has said, someone somewhere has took the piss.

Now, another thing that riles is people who can say this and that about the situation but do you/they live in an area where there is a massive Nepalese influx? I say Nepalese because the majority aren't Gurkhas but are the extended family. I do and have seen the effects it's having on the local area. Approx 10% of the population around here are now Nepalese, I (as some know) do a lot to help them out (as much as my work allows). I speak to the Gurkha Welfare Trust as do most of my colleagues and even they are worried about the influx...they reckon another 12,000 this year.

The answer...fucked if I know, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.
If you feel like doing something though instead of bleating on about Labour MP's then donate money to the ABF who are bearing the brunt of all the financial requests we're sending to them.
 
#12
Let's just look at the BBC 'report':

"Veterans minister Kevan Jones told MPs Gurkhas were being misled and she had a responsibility to explain the new laws."

and

"Last May, ministers abandoned immigration rules preventing Gurkhas who retired before 1997 settling freely in Britain.

Some 36,000 Gurkhas who left before 1997 had been denied UK residency.

Under the new rules, announced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, all Gurkhas with more than four years service have the right to apply for settlement in the UK with their families."



I'd note - as I did before - that Lumley is not a Civil Servant, Minister, MP or whatever official. As such she has no obligation to 'explain', indeed by what mechanism could she? Does she have direct dealing with individual applicants? Is she in the position of vetting applications and applying the rules? Is she a Government spokesman?

Jones (and some commenters here) may be right in his assertion that (some) Gurkhas are being misled, but he chooses to ignore the obvious - which is that it his government which is in power and his responsibility as a Minister to ensure that those dealing with these applications make the position completely clear to applicants and to the taxpayers. Seems to me that that is not happening, but Jones wishes to divert attention away from his (department's) incompetence by publicly attacking Lumley. He has extensive form in that regard.

What Jones is implying is that Lumley is part of a deliberate move to deceive these people - and that is plainly garbage, unless he has evidence to prove otherwise. If he has such evidence why has he not placed that before the Committee? There's a world of difference between 'misled' and 'misinformed', but Jones wouldn't know the difference - indeed both are his stock-in-trade.
 
#13
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know if you have dealing with the Gurkhas but I do on a weekly basis and I'm stating what is happening here in Aldershot and what the Gurkhas are saying to me personally.

If Miss Lumley is really concerned then all I would suggest is that she volunteers to become a SSAFA caseworker and plonk herself here with us for a couple of months and see whats really going on.

Now that's not a lot to ask of her is it?
 
#14
jack-daniels said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know if you have dealing with the Gurkhas but I do on a weekly basis and I'm stating what is happening here in Aldershot and what the Gurkhas are saying to me personally.

If Miss Lumley is really concerned then all I would suggest is that she volunteers to become a SSAFA caseworker and plonk herself here with us for a couple of months and see whats really going on.

Now that's not a lot to ask of her is it?
Well, exactly what are the Gurkhas in Aldershot saying that Ms Lumley has agreed and announced to them on behalf of the UK Government? And your suggestion as to her future employment is a) diversionary, and b) silly. Would you, for example, say that this principle should apply to Kevan Jones?

In the meantime, here's some more news of Mr Jones for his fans:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078834.ece

'Good value for money' seems to be the criterion. Does he apply this 'thinking' elsewhere? Is he himself 'good value'? Perhaps you believe he is.
 
#15
Jones is doing the thing that New Labour are highly skilled at, merely smearing their critics. Brown and Woolas were extremely embarrassed by the actions of Miss Lumley and the Gurhka campaign last year, and their only recourse is to smear her.

Jones has previous for being a smearing cnut with Dannatt and others. New Labour do this to all those who publicly embarrass ministers, remember the 94 year old Rose Addis and her smearing as a "racist" for daring to speak out about her mistreatment at the hands of the NHS in 2002, and the Smear Organisation created in No10, that the PM denied the existence of? We all know that the PM only lies when his lips move.

This attack on Joanna Lumley is another example of smear by this disgraceful government that when it loses the argument goes on to attack the person who dares to speak out.
 
#16
Unsworth said:
jack-daniels said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know if you have dealing with the Gurkhas but I do on a weekly basis and I'm stating what is happening here in Aldershot and what the Gurkhas are saying to me personally.

If Miss Lumley is really concerned then all I would suggest is that she volunteers to become a SSAFA caseworker and plonk herself here with us for a couple of months and see whats really going on.

Now that's not a lot to ask of her is it?
Well, exactly what are the Gurkhas in Aldershot saying that Ms Lumley has agreed and announced to them on behalf of the UK Government? And your suggestion as to her future employment is a) diversionary, and b) silly. Would you, for example, say that this principle should apply to Kevan Jones?

In the meantime, here's some more news of Mr Jones for his fans:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078834.ece

'Good value for money' seems to be the criterion. Does he apply this 'thinking' elsewhere? Is he himself 'good value'? Perhaps you believe he is.
Why? So you're saying that working for a service charity is silly?
I can't and won't go into what's being said to us on a weekly basis suffice to say that she wouldn't get the sort of welcome she was getting a while back.
I didn't say I was a fan of Kevan Jones, only that he's right about this situation. If you look back at my posts I stated that I didn't agree with his attacks on JL.
The Govt as usual have got it wrong and it's the volunteers for the various charities (SSAFA/ABF/TRBL) who are doing the damage limitation.
There is only so much money in a charities pot and at the moment in our area alone it's being emptied at a vast rate.
That is now all I will say on this matter. I know what I do to help them and I'd like to think if you're so concerned that you will try and do the same (if you don't already).
Yours
JD of Aldershot aka Mini Kathmandhu.
 
#17
Isn't the whole point this:

Lumley (and all those others involved in the campaign) managed to embarrass - rightly - a government which had obviously abandoned all pretence of decency and fair-dealings. In the ensuing shambles Woolas et al were caught in the cross-fire. However, instead of falling back, taking stock, developing a new and sensible plan, agreeing it with the relevant parties and then implementing it, (in other words, regrouping etc) Brown led/pushed his troops into panic reaction - with the resultant cock-ups - heavily aided and abetted by the fine Mr Jones.

I'm certainly not in the business of advocating mass immigration from Nepal and, clearly, sensible limits must be applied. The fault here is that those limits are either not being applied or don't even exist or are ill-conceived, and the rules have not been aired publicly (doubtless to avoid further political fall-out). What's needed is some clarity - and we're not getting it from government nor from some commenters here. In the meantime Jones deploys the only weapon he has, that of personal vilification, rather than takes a lead and actually does what is suggested above. In the end this is about (government lack of) competence and personal integrity.
 
#18
jack-daniels said:
Unsworth said:
jack-daniels said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know if you have dealing with the Gurkhas but I do on a weekly basis and I'm stating what is happening here in Aldershot and what the Gurkhas are saying to me personally.

If Miss Lumley is really concerned then all I would suggest is that she volunteers to become a SSAFA caseworker and plonk herself here with us for a couple of months and see whats really going on.

Now that's not a lot to ask of her is it?
Well, exactly what are the Gurkhas in Aldershot saying that Ms Lumley has agreed and announced to them on behalf of the UK Government? And your suggestion as to her future employment is a) diversionary, and b) silly. Would you, for example, say that this principle should apply to Kevan Jones?

In the meantime, here's some more news of Mr Jones for his fans:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078834.ece

'Good value for money' seems to be the criterion. Does he apply this 'thinking' elsewhere? Is he himself 'good value'? Perhaps you believe he is.
Why? So you're saying that working for a service charity is silly?
I can't and won't go into what's being said to us on a weekly basis suffice to say that she wouldn't get the sort of welcome she was getting a while back.
I didn't say I was a fan of Kevan Jones, only that he's right about this situation. If you look back at my posts I stated that I didn't agree with his attacks on JL.
The Govt as usual have got it wrong and it's the volunteers for the various charities (SSAFA/ABF/TRBL) who are doing the damage limitation.
There is only so much money in a charities pot and at the moment in our area alone it's being emptied at a vast rate.
That is now all I will say on this matter. I know what I do to help them and I'd like to think if you're so concerned that you will try and do the same (if you don't already).
Yours
JD of Aldershot aka Mini Kathmandhu.
I don't think I said you were a Jones supporter, but I may be wrong about that.

I'd very much agree with your view of the Government's lamentable performance and the burden being placed on the volunteers - but it is entirely wrong that these (extremely) worthy organisations should find themselves in the position of having to disseminate and carry out a British Government policy and commitment. If Government wants to leave such matters to the charities then the Government should fund them appropriately. Once again, The Treasury avoids its responsibilities and Government shirks its moral duty.
 
#19
It's a fair point that many service charities are picking up the tab for HMG's poor resourcing on this (as just about every other mil issue), and I see for myself the situation around the 'Shot that JD refers to. Others will be aware of other pockets of Mini Kathmandhu.

At the centre of this is JD's comment:

"Whoever is making the claims about the 'promised land' over here ought to take a long hard look at themselves."

Agreed.

Similar, but different, in relation to the administration of the Iraqi LEC Scheme.

Having monitored several of those I knew personally, and the information / support given to them by HMG (who shirks direct involvement, by outsourcing to some of the most inept individuals known to mankind) was not only useless, but the resettlement issues are very similar.

On the evidence of how a few hundred interpreters caused such a headache for HMG, it surprises me not one iota that the Gurkhas suffer this incompetence of communication from HMG. Maybe, those at the centre of the campaign are guilty of many things. Taking Gordon Brown at his word, might be a key one.

I have every sympathy for the situation that JD and a few other friends who are RBL caseworkers and similar, who are having to deal with the fallout.

Let us hope that tomorrow's media effort, and government response will cut through the humiliation of the Phil Woolas incident, and outline in clear terms what is now going to be done to address this growing problem.
 
#20
It's my view that the Iraqi LEC scheme was deliberately incompetent and slow. There was almost no action at all until such people as AB2006 made noises, and had they not done so we would have witnessed many more assassinations and displacements than the shameful numbers to date.

It has often been said that Government Departments move slowly in order to reduce overall costs to the taxpayer. My view is that that is unprincipled and amoral. As but one example of many the War Widows scheme was deliberately dragged out to reduce the numbers who could claim by natural wastage - i.e. death. I'm certain there many other examples.

So it's a mistake to think that we are dealing with men and women of honour when we confront Ministers, their aides and Civil Servants. We are not. For the last thirteen years, maybe longer, we have been facing Party Apparatchiks. Thus I am pleased when someone manages to turn the tables on such ghastly animals as Woolas and Jones.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top