Discussion in 'Gurkhas' started by Xenophon, May 3, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Here it is
The Rational View
I suppose this means I'm a racist
Thank you and fcuk you! Nice.
Taking the legalistic and rational view, quoting the 1947 triparty agreement etc, is all good and well but when looking at the immigration situation to the UK today, being a Gurkha should count for something - maybe no automatism but certainly a very privileged starting point. IMHO
Xenophon - You call that a rational view? What is rational about injustice, unfairness and inequality? The British Government have hidden behind the so called tri-partite agreement for long enough because it suited them. Any fair minded person would see it clearly why the Gurkha Immigration Issue has has been so unfair.
It is not only about Gurkha soldiers, it is about the British Armed Forces not getting what they deserve - proper equipment, proper investment and other care which they deserve. Why did they close all military hospitals? When I had to attend psysiotherapy sessions in Woolwich Military Hopsital, I felt at home being treated by military uniform wearing doctors and nurses. The demise of military hospitals is really saddening. The civilians doctors will never have the same empathy and expertise about treatment of soldiers.
Please do not tell us that the view of some journalist from a newspaper is rational! It is irrational and not well though out view of one individual who does not understand the view of general public and has not regards for fairness and equity.
It seems to me to be a particular sort of selective rationality favoured by politicians when they don't want to admit that they've made a right royal fÃ¼ck-up of something. It's the same selective rationality that allows them to spread their greedy arms and declare that all their expenses are "above board", when that's quite plainly not the case.
What could be more rational than saying: if you're willing to die for a country, you have the right to live there. And all this shite they pump out about letting in the good and bad seems to suddenly become completely irrelevant when they're obtaining visas and the right of abode for their (donating) muckers and their cleaners/babysitters/bits on the side. So it would appear that exceptions are possible in some cases.
The Gurkhas are such an exception.
Well, in the world of real politik if the Ghurkas get all we should wish for them, and all they deserve, they are likely to become an economic liability and may hasten the demise of our relationship with them. Sorry, writing and wall.
A classic compromise is best here, and Ms Lumley can retire with dignity, hopefully to MP of my fine city and I can seek a surgery to discuss, well, anything really.
I can't disagree with one word of that. If you are prepared to put your life on the line for a nation, you deserve its enduring thanks, anything else is crass self indulgent crap.
Talking about rationality, there's a godawful piece of UK legislation that many a Brit has fallen foul of, including a good mucker of mine.
What happened was that he moved to France with his Froggie Doris and when the relationship petered out after four years, came back to Blighty. He couldn't get a job immediately (he's in IT) and applied for unemployment benefits. He was told that, since his centre of interest (or whatever they called it) wasn't in Blighty, he wasn't entitled to any benefits at all! He was born and bred in Blighty, served 12 years in the British Army and had also worked in the UK for something like ten years after his discharge before he upped sticks for France.
He lived with us for two years(!) until it was finally sorted by a tribunal, but even then they arbitrarily knocked about seven months off the sum he should have received.
I did a bit of research on the whole complex (with me mucker Mike) and we found out that the UK gobment had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights (and consistently lost) dozens of times for ruthlessly enforcing this diabolical law, but still they persist.
The point is that the law doesn't apply at all to Micks who enter Blighty from the ROI. Apparently because of the contribution they made to build up the country and the volunteers for the two world wars.
So how come that's (apparently still) seen as perfectly logical, but they get the Gurkhas to jump through all these unnecessary hoops and bury them in red tape?
No! Just a kn0b.
Not at all, just wrong thinking.
Everything said here is right about the entitlement of Ghurkas to be the front of the queue. It's a slam dunk case.
What no-one has been arrsed to do is offer any meaningful 'scenario planning', slackbladders. Raise per man the cost of a Ghurka soldier to equity, plus offshore recruiting and when the emotion simmers a Whitehall robot will offer raw data in five years which will be coloured 'red' with a differential in brackets against per man home recruiting.
Get a grip all. We may be dealing this fine relationship its death knell.
Bo11ocks. Of all the Gurkhas who have resettled in the UK, every single one of them has worked their arses off and got jobs, paid taxes and made the UK a better place. Meanwhile in the street where my old ma lives there are entire families who have NEVER worked. They simply spawn year-on-year, gaining benefits that they simply have not deserved, while our Army colleagues are simply fcuked off becuase they are generally hard-working, discreet, honest and uncomplaining.
Economic liability? Don't believe a word of it.
You're mixing apples and oranges in the economic argument department... but I share the emotion.
You make a very interesting point about increasing the cost of recruiting Ghurkas, and how this might be used as an excuse in these troubled times to sack loads of them and not take on any more - but that would be typical of a government that had lost all moral authority and had also emptied all the cupboards through incompetence.
Labour - the party of equality - unless you're Napalese and have served HM The Queen.
Want a rational argument? Ghurkas volunteer or volunteered to serve, deserve recognition for all those reasons mentioned so often (they soldier with us) and they're of more value than others.
I haven't seen a Ghurka spit in the street, blag a council house with huge families on benefits, nor do they ask for (and get) ridiculous freebies. They don't hate us, they don't demonstrate against marching troops, and they don't lounge around in town centres scoffing takeaways, abusing women. Oh, and they make great curries. Ghurkas contribute or have contributed. End of.
We have a debt of honour to The Ghurkas. Those who fight for our country have a moral right to reside here if they so wish.
Separate names with a comma.