Ghurkas Win Court Battle

[Sebrof]

Jeez! You've finally found some people who actually like Brits. You should treasure them!

The English could get them to man (sorry) people Hadrian's Wall after Scotland declares independence in 2010.

 

Sebrof, I suspect that you have a rather distorted view of what regular armies are about - reading too much fiction perhaps or watching too many Hollywood movies?

 

Well, I seldom go to the cinema, and almost never to watch films about people killing each other. But you may be right that I don't know what a regular army is for. When I did CCF training many years ago the two main thrusts were teaching people to obey orders without question, and learning how to use various lethal weapons in order to kill people.

 

Perhaps it's all different today, and the Gurkhas use their kukris for chopping cabbages for soup kitchens.

 

S

[Sebrof]

But the Gurkhas don't have any money or business connections do they?

 

They have a fantastic PR system, and loads of influential people, including a judge, who support them.

 

They have a tremendous brand, which (ironically) inspires great loyalty - you only have to look at all the support they get from people here.

 

But we needn't worry about them. If the army ever dispenses with their services, some unsavoury regime (Russia perhaps) will snap them up, and soon they'll be shooting our boys. It's what mercenaries do.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can't say I see they have any more reason to be here than anyone else as I do not attach any importance to ideas like 'fighting for one's country'. Ideas of loyalty to one's country, fighting for the British people and British interests is misguided to say the least. I mean I don't think there should be any relevance in fighting for a country and earning a right to live there. They are simply former British Government employees in a sense. But I have no objection to them retiring here than anyone else. And given the conventional attitudes towards military service, etc. I am surprised that they weren't allowed to retire here anyway considering they were part of the British forces.

 

You don't sign up to fight for your country as you don't actually expect them to call your bluff. But when they do and shit happens you move forward to do your bit for yourself and your mates. Loyalty to your country has got sod-all to do with it.

 

 

Fair enough. Maybe my idea of the loyalty of the troops is actually a reflection of the rubbish portrayed in the media about the role of British forces and the importance of their supposed efforts in the name of the country.

 

But it seems like something of a small technically that the Gurkhas could not reside her yet any other commonwealth citizen who had been in the forces could. Sounds stupid.

[Sebrof]

........ any other commonwealth citizen who had been in the forces could.

 

But they are not citizens of a Commonwealth country. Nepal has never been in the Empire or the Commonwealth. They were not being discriminated against. They are completely foreign people who accepted money to kill enemies of Britain.

 

S

[Sebrof]

I do think the scandal with the pensions was shocking. I don't see why they should have received less than British personnel.

 

Because until this absurd ruling, they went back to their villages in Nepal, where the cost of living is one twentieth that of the UK, and lived exceedingly well. There was nothing wrong with the pension arrangements whatsoever.

 

S

[Sebrof]

.........the [sic] have won more Victoria crosses [sic] than any other British regiment

 

Not difficult as they are not "a regiment". There have been a great many Gurkha regiments. Perhaps it's your "facts" that need correcting, along with your spelling and manners.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

........ any other commonwealth citizen who had been in the forces could.

 

But they are not citizens of a Commonwealth country. Nepal has never been in the Empire or the Commonwealth. They were not being discriminated against. They are completely foreign people who accepted money to kill enemies of Britain.

 

S

 

Oh no, that's what I meant. They are not Commonwealth citizens but if residency for commonwealth citizens is conferred for having previously in the British military then why should the Gurkhas be different.

But they are no more foreign than most Commonwealth members or people from former imperial possessions. From that perspective Commonwealth citizens should be no more entitled to residency as they are just as foreign. Also, what distinguished a mercenary. Yes they were under the pay of the British government, but are non-conscripted troops of any armed forces.

 

I am not saying that due to their service under the British military they are worthy of living in Britain. They are no more worthy than anyone else who does or doesn't live in the UK. But if the issue is about nationality and how they have become part of the British armed forces then I have to question why commonwealth citizens are not also prevented from gaining residency. I understand that the imperial possessions were British territory but why was residency offered to them in the first place? Was it because they had fought in the British forces? If so, then again I have to ask how the Gurkhas are any different.

 

Because until this absurd ruling, they went back to their villages in Nepal, where the cost of living is one twentieth that of the UK, and lived exceedingly well. There was nothing wrong with the pension arrangements whatsoever.

 

I would be curious as to why they would want to come to the UK then.

Were the pension arrangements not far less than what British soldiers received?

[Sebrof]

........ any other commonwealth citizen who had been in the forces could.

 

But they are not citizens of a Commonwealth country. Nepal has never been in the Empire or the Commonwealth. They were not being discriminated against. They are completely foreign people who accepted money to kill enemies of Britain.

 

S

 

Oh no, that's what I meant. They are not Commonwealth citizens but if residency for commonwealth citizens is conferred for having previously in the British military then why should the Gurkhas be different.

But they are no more foreign than most Commonwealth members or people from former imperial possessions. From that perspective Commonwealth citizens should be no more entitled to residency as they are just as foreign. Also, what distinguished a mercenary. Yes they were under the pay of the British government, but are non-conscripted troops of any armed forces.

 

I am not saying that due to their service under the British military they are worthy of living in Britain. They are no more worthy than anyone else who does or doesn't live in the UK. But if the issue is about nationality and how they have become part of the British armed forces then I have to question why commonwealth citizens are not also prevented from gaining residency. I understand that the imperial possessions were British territory but why was residency offered to them in the first place? Was it because they had fought in the British forces? If so, then again I have to ask how the Gurkhas are any different.

 

Because until this absurd ruling, they went back to their villages in Nepal, where the cost of living is one twentieth that of the UK, and lived exceedingly well. There was nothing wrong with the pension arrangements whatsoever.

 

I would be curious as to why they would want to come to the UK then.

Were the pension arrangements not far less than what British soldiers received?

 

Because last year their pensions were increased to the same level as the British army, so asking to be allowed to stay was a logical next move. They must see it as a step-up to live in Britain. Things must be pretty dire in Nepal.

 

I have nothing against the Gurkhas, but the government reckons 140,000 of them (including dependents, most of whom don't speak English) are entitled to come. England (not the UK) is the fourth most densely populated nation in the world (excluding city-states and small islands), and really needs to lose people, not encourage more to come.

 

S

[Sebrof]

Incidentally, 140 Nepalis apply for each vacancy in the Gurkha Brigade. Doesn't sound to me as though their terms of service need improving.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

........ any other commonwealth citizen who had been in the forces could.

 

But they are not citizens of a Commonwealth country. Nepal has never been in the Empire or the Commonwealth. They were not being discriminated against. They are completely foreign people who accepted money to kill enemies of Britain.

 

S

 

Oh no, that's what I meant. They are not Commonwealth citizens but if residency for commonwealth citizens is conferred for having previously in the British military then why should the Gurkhas be different.

But they are no more foreign than most Commonwealth members or people from former imperial possessions. From that perspective Commonwealth citizens should be no more entitled to residency as they are just as foreign. Also, what distinguished a mercenary. Yes they were under the pay of the British government, but are non-conscripted troops of any armed forces.

 

I don't think population density is the problem. The impact could be on housing. But plenty of immigrants are making their way to Britain in any case.

 

 

I am not saying that due to their service under the British military they are worthy of living in Britain. They are no more worthy than anyone else who does or doesn't live in the UK. But if the issue is about nationality and how they have become part of the British armed forces then I have to question why commonwealth citizens are not also prevented from gaining residency. I understand that the imperial possessions were British territory but why was residency offered to them in the first place? Was it because they had fought in the British forces? If so, then again I have to ask how the Gurkhas are any different.

 

Because until this absurd ruling, they went back to their villages in Nepal, where the cost of living is one twentieth that of the UK, and lived exceedingly well. There was nothing wrong with the pension arrangements whatsoever.

 

I would be curious as to why they would want to come to the UK then.

Were the pension arrangements not far less than what British soldiers received?

 

Because last year their pensions were increased to the same level as the British army, so asking to be allowed to stay was a logical next move. They must see it as a step-up to live in Britain. Things must be pretty dire in Nepal.

 

I have nothing against the Gurkhas, but the government reckons 140,000 of them (including dependents, most of whom don't speak English) are entitled to come. England (not the UK) is the fourth most densely populated nation in the world (excluding city-states and small islands), and really needs to lose people, not encourage more to come.

 

S

[Skeddan]

the government reckons 140,000 of them (including dependents, most of whom don't speak English) are entitled to come. England (not the UK) is the fourth most densely populated nation in the world (excluding city-states and small islands), and really needs to lose people, not encourage more to come.

 

Will they have same rights of settlement in EU as ordinary British citizens, or will there be a special category for the EU of 'Gurkhamen' like 'Manxmen'?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Incidentally, 140 Nepalis apply for each vacancy in the Gurkha Brigade. Doesn't sound to me as though their terms of service need improving.

 

S

 

Is the pay good or very good in compared to the average income of a Nepalese man?

[Sebrof]

Incidentally, 140 Nepalis apply for each vacancy in the Gurkha Brigade. Doesn't sound to me as though their terms of service need improving.

 

S

 

Is the pay good or very good in compared to the average income of a Nepalese man?

 

For some time, I believe, they have had the same pay as the British army. It's only pensions that weren't in step. So, yes, the pay is positively extravagant by Nepali standards. You'd have to wreck a bank over here to be so well-paid.

 

S

[Sebrof]

the government reckons 140,000 of them (including dependents, most of whom don't speak English) are entitled to come. England (not the UK) is the fourth most densely populated nation in the world (excluding city-states and small islands), and really needs to lose people, not encourage more to come.

 

Will they have same rights of settlement in EU as ordinary British citizens, or will there be a special category for the EU of 'Gurkhamen' like 'Manxmen'?

 

I don't know, but I suspect they will get full citizenship.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

the government reckons 140,000 of them (including dependents, most of whom don't speak English) are entitled to come. England (not the UK) is the fourth most densely populated nation in the world (excluding city-states and small islands), and really needs to lose people, not encourage more to come.

 

Will they have same rights of settlement in EU as ordinary British citizens, or will there be a special category for the EU of 'Gurkhamen' like 'Manxmen'?

 

I don't know, but I suspect they will get full citizenship.

 

S

 

But going back to the nationality issue though. I don't see why these Gurkhas should be treated differently to Commonwealth citizens who served. The reason behind the commonwealth residency is based on their service under the British military, not just because of what they are from. Though I don't why really why anyone should be more entitled to move here simply because they were paid by the British government