THE RATIONAL VIEW ON GURKHA SETTLEMENT IN THE UK

#2
No Briton would consider joining the armed forces principally for enrichment – nor would we wish it to be so – but for a family otherwise consigned to the desperately insecure life of subsistence hill-farming in one of the world’s poorest countries, a guaranteed salary followed by a British Army pension at the age of 33 is a golden opportunity. Yes, we exploited these harsh facts for our own military advantage; but what was the harm done to the Nepalese recruits?
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
 
#3
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.
 
#4
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 fück-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.

MsG
 
#5
Raider said:
Xenophon - You call that a rational view? What is rational about injustice, unfairness and inequality? ...
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.
 
#6
Bugsy said:
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 fück-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.

MsG
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.
 
#7
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?

MsG
 
#10
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.
 
#11
BoomShackerLacker said:
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.
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.
 
#12
CardinalSin said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
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.
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.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
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.
 
T

Tremaine

Guest
#14
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.
 
#15
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.
 
#16
Xenophon said:
Here it is


The Rational View

I suppose this means I'm a racist :D
Not really, just a bit of c0ck who doesn't recognise the service that the Gurkhas have given to this country.

To a man, the Gurkhas will have served 15 years minimum in Her Majesties Armed Forces. We allow people to claim benefits and live in our fair isle who have done that sort of time in prison.

Suggest you and dominic get your arrses around to a Gurkha barracks and get some time in with them.
 
#17
When I did the visa application for UK residency one of the big enablers for an affirmative decision was 'long and conspicuous service to the Crown'... none of us would be having this discussion if someone had bothered to tell some ignorant mongs who sort through visa applications that being a Gurkha in THE BRITISH ARMY is Crown service.

The Gurkhas and their future with the British Army would probably have been better served if their service had been properly recognized at the point of visa applications instead of Nu Labour sticking their oar in re pay and 1997 in their trademark cack-handed way, leading directly to the current situation.

If only they had fairly given out what was asked for in all fairness in the first place, instead of making one ill-placed compensation after another, like jenga stacks. It will all come falling down.
 
#18
BoomShackerLacker said:
CardinalSin said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
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.
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.
It is good what's happened to those gurkhas who have served and are serving, Joanna Lumley is charging into battle in the similar vein to that of General Walter Walker who went to the defence of the brigade of gurkhas when it nearly got cut in 1967.
Then the brigade had recdently been the lead of cross border "claret" operations into Indonesia and during one of many decorated actions, a VC had been won. Cuts after operational service for gurkhas is not unusual, and is not limited to Labour governments, 2/7Gr went after the Falklands.

The phrase "nail in the coffin of gurkhas future and unborn" has been used for this current decison on gurkha residency and it is maybe true as an extra 1.5bn on the defence budget is going to cause some squeaks somewhere, but the brigade has lived on a knife edge for over 40 years and i hope it will continue to survive. (The Sultan of Brunei's preference (and £40m payment) for a gurkha unit in the garrison there will help)

An increase in overall army recruitment won't finish the brigade, as it would have to be a significant enough rise to account for the extra gurkha engineer, transport and signal squadrons that have been formed in the last few years as well as the three extra gurkha reinforcement infantry companies for AFG.

What will more likely threaten the brigade in the future is political issues in Nepal due to a reduction in gurkha pension income or a drawdown in Afghan ops leading to the next round of defence cuts.

The gurkhas provoke strong emotions, both pro and against (the scottish regimental lobby was one of the more vociferous until recently), but BSL has hit the nail on the head in that once public attention has mooved on and the gurkhas will be a less economic spread sheet entry awaiting a red highlight.
 
#19
The_Coming_Man said:
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.
Ah, there is the problem.
They can't claim that particular debt as an "expense"
 
#20
Economical liability....

I love the word Economic.

It is like a mad mullah or similar religious nut job saying that it is the will of Allah/god/space goats after misinturpreting the Koran/holy book.

Here's a poser for you.... It is more economical to ship Lamb from New Zealand, than it is to grow them right here on our own Island.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top