Vote Lumley! « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

[closed]

Vote Lumley!

61 posts & 26 voices | Started 3 years ago by tankslapper | Latest reply from mikertroid

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: « Previous 12

mikertroid - Member

Anagallis

I cant stand the **** women, she sounds so much like Thatcher in her accent I have no idea what she has actually said as the chips on my shoulder start smacking me in the ear. She's just some plummy voiced old cow on the telly surrounded by braying tories to me.

Out of line!!

If you're a bit put off by her 'Posh' accent, let me tell you that was what being brought up in Colonial India did for you-you were well educated. She went to the same school as my Mother In Law, who speaks with the same accent. Let me tell you that there's nothing 'Plum' about it; that's what life abroad taught you.

If I referred to someone who had a strong regional accent as a 'thick northerner', for example, you'd all be offended. At least you can understand her, unlike half the f-wits you hear out and about nowadays!!

However, you've self-diagnosed your chips, so that's a start, I suppose!!

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

Not saying the previous govt were right, but as it's wrong we need to fix it.

So how come the Tories never fixed it then ?

For nearly 200 years the Ghurhas have been part of the British army.
In the last 200 years Labour have been in power for about 30 years.
The Tories on the other hand, have been in power for most of the remaining 170 years.

So plenty of time to 'fix' the wrong then.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

grizzlygus

Agreed!

Time to fix it!!

Posted 3 years ago #
uponthedowns - Member

Does it need fixing? Can someone with a better knowledge of history than me tell me why the Gurkhas are anything more than mercenaries who new the score when they signed up? I know it sounds harsh but really I'd like to know why they're a special case.

Having said that I've no problem with granting them residency here and I've no doubt that they'll make a bigger contribution to the UK than, for example the Somalis we let in.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

Er,, whatever?!

There's a 'subtle' difference between a Ghurka and a mercenary!!

Believe me I know

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

There's a 'subtle' difference between a Ghurka and a mercenary

Nothing too obvious then ?

Posted 3 years ago #
uponthedowns - Member

Enlighten us then. Why aren't they just mercenaries? Not that just being mercenaries should prevent them from being UK citizens. Serve three years in the French Foreign Legion and you can apply for French citizenship. But the fact remains they knew the rules when they signed up.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

The Ghurkas are embedded in the Army within a dedicated regiment. They have a pension and some ( not all hence the fuss) have residency rights in UK.

A mercenary will typically have no formal Regiment structure to work through, they will have no residency rights no pension. There are other differences but here is not the forum to discuss.

Some mercenaries will be embedded in a formal structure but it will be short term and few in number.

Posted 3 years ago #
konabunny - Member

"Why aren't they just mercenaries?"

Well, I am not unsympathetic to them, and think that there are many more important things (better and worse) going on in the UK right now, and wouldn't ever be bothered enough to do anything against them settling in the UK, but I do agree with some of your argument: afaics they were never promised residency or citizenship so why ask afterward for it? (In fact, I vaguely remember hearing that the obligation to go back to Nepal was part of the agreement with the Nepalese state but that might just be man in the pub nonsense).

However, they're not really mercenaries in the classic sense because they're state-sponsored (by Nepal), they can't go to the highest bidder and they're employed by a state (the UK). You wouldn't call Aussies who join the UK military mercenaries, for instance.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

They WERE given residency rights back in 1997, just not all of them. A decision that is wrong and now illegal.

Having seen these guys, I'm amazed that were not pleading for them to come; they'd contribute to the 'right stuff' that is sorely lacking in today's society.

Please can't we trade 1 Ghurka for 10 chavs? Sounds like a good deal to me

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

So you were right then mikertroid, the difference between a Gurkha and a mercenary is indeed subtle - basically down to pretty minor technical details such as whether they have a dedicated regiment and a pension scheme.

However, presumably in most respects (including the all important 'moral' ones) there is no difference between a Gurkha and any other mercenary. That is, they are prepared to fight for a country which has nothing to do with them, in wars which have nothing to do with them, for money.

Whilst natural justice clearly dictates that the right of former Gurkhas to settle in the UK is simply indisputable, perhaps the long term solution should be that Britain, as the world's 5th richest nation, and with an indigenous population of over 60 million, stops relying on mercenaries from a tiny impoverished third world country.

After all, as every tabloid reader in the country knows, the British soldier is the best in the world, and it's only really the superior and unique training which they recieve within the British army, that makes the Gurkhas such a formidable fighting force.

.

Having said that, there are as we speak, 19,000 former Maoist guerrillas languishing in UN camps in Nepal waiting to be incorporated into the Nepalese army, bearing in mind that they basically thrashed the Nepalese army, perhaps they could be incorporated into the British army ?

Why, even their women seem a bit scary

Posted 3 years ago #
Zulu-Eleven - Member

Gus, the essential difference between a Mercenary and a Gurkha, both morally and legally, is that they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the country for which they are fighting.

When it comes to Citizenship - I'm totally with the concept brought about in the works of Robert Heinlein - Service (not only military) Guarantees Citizenship.

I also think that the underlying ethos brought about within the FF Legion, that someone becomes "Français par le sang versé" is entirely respectable, and once that we should look at building onto our own criteria.

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

Ratty - I think that you have completely failed to understand the purpose of the French Foreign Legion.

The French being French, understand that it is the right of every man in the world to fight and die
in some god-forsaken distant foreign land, after being jilted by their lover.

Posted 3 years ago #
konabunny - Member

Oh, God, not Heinlein! Doesn't the existence of the French Foreign Legion alongside a compulsory military force somewhat undermine your argument?

the essential difference between a Mercenary and a Gurkha, both morally and legally, is that they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the country for which they are fighting.

Oh that's hardly the essential difference - anyone can say a few words. Surely actions should be more important - isn't that what you're saying about the Foreign Legion - that it's the sange verse that gets you the papers and not the singing of the Marseillaise?

(Terrible French spelling all over the magasin here)

Posted 3 years ago #
Zulu-Eleven - Member

Dang, if it wasnt for the pesky Psoriasis keeping me out then you'd be rid of me Gus

Kona -
i) No conscription in france any more (plus the Legion recruits primarily non native, people who would not be eligible to become citizens without service)
ii) I would say that Gurkha history more than proves the substance that they accept their oath of allegiance as something deeper than a "few words".

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

Z-11

Spot on.

Grizzlygus- you've not appreciated the fact that MOST Ghurkas DO have residency rights , just not all; that's what's wrong.

They're not mercenaries by any stretch

Posted 3 years ago #
konabunny - Member

i) yeah, conscription went in 2001, but that's not when the Foreign Legion came into existence! if military service and citizenship were such great bedfellows, then you wouldn't need to recruit foreigners because there would be so many locals wanting to go professional and the civilian population would be incredibly civic-minded and cohesive - which isn't (and wasn't) France as she is.

ii) I would say that Gurkha history more than proves the substance that they accept their oath of allegiance as something deeper than a "few words".

Well, that's precisely my point - the difference between mercenaries and Gurkhas isn't mumbling a few words, it's substance and law and a bunch of other things.

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

Grizzlygus- you've not appreciated the fact that MOST Ghurkas DO have residency rights , just not all; that's what's wrong.

They're not mercenaries by any stretch

I think I do appreciate that many Gurkhas have residency rights in the UK. But I'm also aware that one of the pre-97 conditions is 20 years of service to qualify for residency, which in effect only applies to officers, as the rank and file Gurkhas (which is 98% of Gurkhas) are only allowed to serve for 15 years. Nice to see that good old British class distinction is still alive and kicking in Her Majesty's armed forces.

"They're not mercenaries by any stretch "

You really don't have to 'stretch' your imagination very far to figure out that anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'.

Or do you have a quaint little image of a simple and yet fiercely loyal people, who's only motivation is to serve the Great White Queen ?

I'll remind you that considerably more Nepalese are in the Gurkhas of the Indian army - are they similarly motivated by a deep loyalty to India ?

Furthermore I suspect that if the Nepalese felt such a strong affinity with Britain, Nepal would still be a British territory, in the same way as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands still are.

IMO the motivation of young Nepalese men who are desperate to join the British Gurkhas (98% of whom are rejected) is really rather clear. Also pretty damn clear are the motives of Britain, a rich and wealthy country which exploits desperately poor people to fight in it's sometimes highly unpopular military adventures.

Posted 3 years ago #
konabunny - Member

"anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'."

This is just arseburgers: by the same argument, UK recruits are mercenaries in the UK army because they only do it for money. And that means either the Gurkhas aren't mercenaries because other squaddies aren't, or that both Gurkhas and squaddies are mercenaries, which dilutes the meaning of the word "mercenary" to the point where it's meaningless.

Posted 3 years ago #
STATO - Member

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party

^from Wiki (so no idea how accurate it is)

top points to note are...
who is not a national or a party to the conflict
kona bunny, i think its pretty obvious that squadies cannot be mercenaries for their own country

compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party
Ive no idea how much the Gurkahs get, but i doubt its more that a similar level squadie, so i dont know if you can actually call them mercenaries. Perhaps a better word would be "foreign volunteer" (wiki link)

Posted 3 years ago #
BigDummy - Member

Stato's link is (I think) the Geneva Conventioon definition. It matters, because mercenaries are not entitled to Geneva Cnvention protection as prisoners of war.

Ghurkas serving in the British army are not (technically) mercenaries under that definition because they do not fail the test of receiving "compensation substantially in excess", they are paid less or the same as a British soldier. If of course we looked at it in terms of "is there anything else they could be doing in Nepal that would net them more money than fighting in the British army?" we would (I suspect) conclude that "private gain" was quite an important motivation for them, although I am sure that, like soldiers in most places, they are also happy to do what they do.

I do not understand the position of, say, British and american civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under this definition though. Although motivated by finaincial gain and paid 10 times as much as regular troops they are nationals of countires involved. I suppose thw answer is that they are not combatants, either because there is no state of war or because (theoreticallly) say, convoy guards or whatever are not taking part in hostilities.

Posted 3 years ago #
noteeth - Member

we would (I suspect) conclude that "private gain" was quite an important motivation for them

Thousands join Army to escape recession

Even given the "special contracted, er, mercenaries" argument, I fail to see why Ghurkas should not be extended the same rights and privileges as Commonwealth troops. Ghurka vets should at least have the right to settle here, if they so choose. The attitude of *successive administrations was neatly encapsulated by the suggestion (in court) that a soldier holding the VC had not demonstrated sufficient "connection" to this country. Others may do a better job of raising citizen armies, but nobody does mealy-mouthed doublespeak better than us Brits!

Posted 3 years ago #
konabunny - Member

I do not understand the position of, say, British and american civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under this definition though. Although motivated by finaincial gain and paid 10 times as much as regular troops they are nationals of countires involved.

Employees of Private Military Contractors/Private Security Companies don't get Geneva Convention rights - Geneva binds states only.

kona bunny, i think its pretty obvious that squadies cannot be mercenaries for their own country

Yeah, I know - that's why I described the whole idea as "arseburgers". :roll:

Posted 3 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

Yeah konabunny, I try to carefully choose my words, hence the use of the term 'in essence' and the use of apostrophes in 'mercenary'.

Because I was fully aware that an 'arseburger' might come along and explain how 'technically' they weren't strictly 'mercenaries'.

However of course anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'

:rolls eyes:

Posted 3 years ago #
tankslapper - Member

I'm back; what did I miss................?

Posted 3 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

Well if its of no consequence

Possible career move could be to the dark mercenary side.

Won't be expecting any rights for anything

Posted 3 years ago #