outrageous 200 years they have been laying down there lives for us , you will not ever , ever meet a better soldier / man , one of these guys has done more for this country than any of the imagrants trying to stay here at the mo, served with them in hong kong and up at dering lines wales.

this really is disgusting . I had the pleasure to serve with the ghurkas. And it was a pleasure they were a great bunch. What is even more galling is the fact that john terry splitting with his bird was top story of the day before this . Whats going on

surely not a single person in the uk agrees with the governments decision – disgusted at the way they are treating ghurkas.

imagrants trying to stay here

to be fair, thats exactly what they are.

shame that this thread had been filled with poisonous racist bile

Do they have female Ghurkas?

Cus if they do I should shack up with one instead of the missus, she’d be a lot quieter tip toeing into bed when I’m a sleep.

😀

Maybe all of the serving Gurkhas should “down tools” and claim asylum in the U.K. They would then be allowed to stay at the expense of the taxpayers whilst their case was being heard. That might wake ANY government up. How perverse that they are entrusted the safety of a serving member of Royalty in Afghanistan, but not trusted with a British Passport.

I was in the Falklands with the Gurkhas in 2000, when they were deployed to fill the role of RIC (Resident Infantry Company). They had to fill in for a Scottish Regiment that was severely undermanned at the time. A nicer bunch of guys you will never meet. The maintenance staff were also grateful at not having to rebuild and redecorate after they had left. (unlike the majority of other RICs’).

Speaking of Scottish (and English) regiments. Why were no Gurkha companies disbanded and ammalgamated during the cuts? (I assume). Was it because they are cheaper to employ?

An absolute disgrace, that ANY soldier of ANY nationality serving in our armed forces, is not granted citizenship.

My letter to No.10 has been posted.

Is it not a possibility that it is not the Gurkhas who have served that is the concern but the fact that they could bring any of their family members once they have gained permanent residency?

Furthermore what of soldiers from Commonwealth countries (e.g. Fijians) that have served with the UK army…shouldn’t they have the same rights or should Gurkhas have more rights?

It’s very rare that I’ve ever been so disgusted at something a government (of any party) of this country has done. I listened to a mealy-mouthed little to$$er of a spokesman on the radio this afternoon trying to defend the decision with what were maybe not technically lies, but were 99% of the way towards them.

It’s pathetic the way a government that kow-tows to Brussels and has proved such a soft touch in the past has suddenly decided to stab in the back one of the countries in the world that has been one of our closest allies for decades. Makes me ashamed to be British.

An absolute disgrace, that ANY soldier of ANY nationality serving in our armed forces, is not granted citizenship.

My letter to No.10 has been posted.

here here.

Its a terrible shame the government won’t let these chaps in who have shown terrific loyalty to the UK whilst so many other less deserving are allowed in.

Although some do-gooders will probably brandish me as a racist or a nazi for that comment, I do feel that loyalty ought to be rewarded.

they must be allowed to stay , guys you do not know what it means to them to have served.sod all the rest , any one from the Ghurkas should automaticly be alowed to stay,

nukeproof – yes, in my area we have a large Nepalese population where family members have been allowed to come to the U.K. This includes the elderly family members too.

The pride felt by prospective Gurkhas at being selected to serve is so strong, that bridges in the area where selection is taking place are guarded. The reason for the guards is to prevent those not successful from committing suicide by jumping from the bridges.

They do not serve purely for financial reward, but should be afforded the same right to residence and fiscal security as those they serve alongside. The same applies to those who choose to serve The Commonwealth.

The feckless idiots who decide policy only do so because of the liberty and freedom granted to them by the sacrifices made by these bravest of soldiers. This isn’t, nor should it be made, into an issue of immigration. Rather it should be about the repayment of a debt to a relatively small band ready to place themselves in front of any threat to our security.

Our non indigenous soldiers ALL swear an oath to serve and protect:
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me”. Surely it is only right to return the favour?

Furthermore what of soldiers from Commonwealth countries (e.g. Fijians) that have served with the UK army…shouldn’t they have the same rights or should Gurkhas have more rights?

MY understanding is that the Gurkhas dont’ have the same rights as soldiers from commonwealth countries. Effectively the government is saying they can’t have residency because they’re Nepalese (unless they fulfill the proposed 6 conditions – ie. severe wounding, family ties, can’t remember the others).

It was quite funny listening to Question Time on Radio 4 last night – JD wouldn’t let the Labour MP get away with spinning his usual platitudes / trotting out banal excuses about how they might get residency if they met the criteria. Which is circular as JD would then point out. Basically it came down to the rest of the country saying “This is unfair” and the Government saying “This is an immigration issue”.

As here there was universal opposition to the proposals and to the inequality of the situation.

Talking of families etc settling in the UK – there is a fantastic Nepalese restaurant near us that is owned and run by ex-servicemen and their families.It comes complete with a portrait of the Queen in every room as well as regimental photos on the walls. Oddly enough it’s one of the few local curry houses that doesn’t get trouble when the post-pub crowd come in – not sure you’d mess with a one-armed, one-eyed, hard-as-hell ex-Gurkha, even if he was wearing a waiters outfit. 😀

as far as im aware Fijians get a british passport if and whne they leave the forces. so why shouldnt the ghurkas get rights to stay in the country??

it is a problem that has been put to the CGS (chief of genral staff) many a time on cgs briefs that havde been held at my regt!!

and they make a cracking curry in the field (some how)