[Closed] Vote Lumley!

Was about to post the same! She delivered a well placed rhetorical knee to the nuyts of that oleaginous twunt Woolas!

Brilliant stuff and for a worthy cause! Well done her!

Ayo Ghurkali!

Totally agree.

Absolutely fantastic. 😛

I hope your thread doesn't closed down like [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/joanna-lumley:// ]mine[/url]:cry:

degenerates 😀

Woolas pwned!

I am slightly uneasy about all this, I must admit. It seems rather odd that the issue is getting the attention that it is, given that (until a couple of weeks ago anyway) the main concern was the total collapse of the world economy and the inevitable decline of our nation into barbarian pseudo-communism. It is an easy issue to get one's head round, and one on which (slightly wierdly) the tories happen to be suddenly on the right side. But it is utterly peripheral. It's clearly a better cause than "get upset about Jade Goody being dead", they aren't really comparable, but it has a slight air of the manipulation of a straightforward story on which everyone outside government appears to be able to agree instantly and with massive self-righteousness despite only starting to care very recently.

It's also rather hard on the Home Office and Brown. For the last 10 years, they have assumed (mostly correctly) that the popular knee will jerk in exactly one direction when the question "shall we let some more small brown persons live in Britain?" is asked. This time, they have got it wrong. They kept their nerve over the hundreds of Iraqi interpreters that were left behind to be beheaded in Basra. Dannatt and Jackson were angry about it and said so, but Helen Mirren and Matt Lucas didn't take to the barricades and the issue went away.

Here we have political miscalculation + easy win + fortunate tory opportunism + hot celebrity + readily comprehensible issue of no major importance = major headache.

It is doing immense damage to Labour, they should have got it right, of course, but we will struggle to remember the issue in 6 months time.

None of this is intended as support for the governments position on the issue, or dismissal of the claims of the ghurkas particularly, it is just interesting how we are seeing the issue turning into a defining moment.

Well put Big Dummy, its sad how peoples lives are dependent not on the right thing being done, but the right combination of celeb, opposition gov opportunity, simple issues etc.

Spot on Big Dummy.

As for the tories being on the right side, they didn't resolve this issue when they were in power did they?

that was well over a decade ago though, so you have to bear that in mind. Mind you I expect its Thatchers fault. It usually is.

Whether it was over a decade ago is irrelevant. For Cameron to stand up there with Lumley on this issue when his party in the past did nothing for the Gurhka's is hypocrisy and people including Lumley who I would have thought was a little more intelligent should recognise it for what it is, her cause is being used in a cheap political points game.

to be fair it was nick clegg who seized on this populist issue and brought it to the commons, not cameron

it must really have been difficult for the torries traditional pro-forces yet anti-immigrant bias

as for lumley

witty, stylish, attractive, intelligent, popular, confident, commanding
basically, everything most mps arent they dont stand a chance against her,
especially considering most of them probably grew up knocking one out to her catsuited ass in the new avengers!

you know if that last statement was true I think I'd probably have more respect for them than I currently do.....

[i]people including Lumley who...should recognise it for what it is[/i]

Maybe, although bear in mind that Lumley is fighting this corner partly on account of her late father (who served with the Ghurkas).

[i]traditional pro-forces yet anti-immigrant bias[/i]

You think we got to run an Empire by being fair or honourable? Expediency is all - the Romans knew that, and so did we. The Ghurkas are formidable soldiers, and we've being getting their service on the cheap - ever since the British East India Company got a hefty surprise in Nepal.

Whether it was over a decade ago is irrelevant. For Cameron to stand up there with Lumley on this issue when his party in the past did nothing for the Gurhka's is hypocrisy

Not really, unless Cameron personally could be shown to have been against their immigration. After all, the history of the Conservative party goes back to at least 1832 (thanks Wikipedia!), and it's a little unreasonable to hold any party leader to all the party's positions held since its founding...

That said, Cameron's obviously milking the situation, but then he'd be a fool not to.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brown-engulfed-by-expenses-scandal-as-power-passes-to-joanna-lumley-200905081748/ ]Daily Mash[/url] on it, as usual. 😀

wowzers after seeing that pic of lumley on the daily mash think i may be knocking one out over young patsy!

Prefer the young Diana Rigg meself...

erm, so, Ghurkas...

oh no contest, rigg in that dominatrx outfit is a highpoint of modern culture and civilization

I know people who were ex commonwealth who got citizenship, no problems. Yet as Nepal not on commonwealth it's sod off.
I see that they lost a couple out in Afgan yesterday. Adds too pressure.

On the Lumley thing, she has supported other issues in the past, perhaps politics is her new future.

Lumley, or Rigg ??? either please

I wonder how many people who think the subject is inconsequential have served with the Ghurkas? The Ghurkas have been very instrumental in people in this country having the right to free speech, many of them giving their lives in the process. They have more rights to be here than all of the freeloaders that are spongeing our system dry. It is a real newsworthy issue. I'm not saying that the Tories etc aren't making the most political ground possible on the back of it but it stands by itself as a major injustice that should be brought to the public's attention. If old Purdey had been a bloke with similar oratory and PR skills I wonder if people would be so sceptical.

Give the Lib Dem's some credit on this one as they are the ones that got it into the commons, give the Labour backbenchers some credit for voting the right way, give the Tories some credit being against the Goverment (for helping out in the vote). Give Ms Lumley bags of credit for bringing it to almost everyones attention.
I'd like to say give the Goverment some credit for listening to the argument and doing the right thing. But most of all I'd like to give the Ghurkas credit for being the brave honorable soldiers that they are, in particular those that have died or been seriously injured.

This could be a winner for all concerned with a little help from Mr Brown.

Devs, I can see see that it is a big issue [i]for ghurkas[/i]. Its national significance for the UK is negligible, in the sense that the numbers of people, amounts of money and implications for public affairs barely register.

As I say, largely sympathetic to their claims.

Its national significance for the UK is negligible, in the sense that the numbers of people, amounts of money and implications for public affairs barely register.

You under estimate the debt ths country owes them. It's far from negligible.

Its national significance for the UK is negligible, in the sense that the numbers of people, amounts of money and implications for public affairs barely register.

It's significance is HUGE:

It demonstrates just how out of ouch our unelected Prime Minister and his pathetic shambles of a party are with what's right and with public mood.

If you want cost savings, for each Ghurka boot out 10 sponging career claimants who have never contributed to society other than bleeding our already bankrupt nation dry. The Ghurkas have contributed to our freedom and society many more times over than many taxpayers residing in the UK, not least the snivelling, pathetic, self-interested excuse of a collection of MPs we have (all parties).

The reason why we're in such poor state is down to the fact that we're governed by a bunch of people that have no experience or knowledge of how the world works; a career in politics does not a leader make.

It's significance is HUGE:

It demonstrates just how out of ouch our unelected Prime Minister and his pathetic shambles of a party are with what's right and with public mood.

But it's not you see. I came on here to post and BigDummy said more or less what I'm thinking. To the UK as a whole, trying to get through this recession, this is tiny. You know, I'd rather the boss was sitting there thinking about how we might keep local services running and keep public spending up than worrying about whether he "dropped the ball" about a few thousand soldiers that are waiting to come and live here. Being honest about it, I think he'd be perfectly right to say "**** off Joanna, you're a bloody actress. What do you know about anything? So take your single issue politics that's wasting everyone's time at the moment and get in the queue with the rest of the idiots."

We let ourselves get whipped into a frenzy over the smallest things sometimes. Frankly, most of the country doesn't even understand what kind of a state our (and the world's) economy is in. And why's that? Because, well, it's boring isn't it and difficult to comprehend. But, hey, a few thousand troops that fought and are [b][i]prepared to die[/i][/b] - now that's worth getting into a week long frenzy, when there are far more important things to be worrying about. As far as I'm concerned, the Gurkhas can wait a few years while we sort more important things out.

It's significance is HUGE:

It demonstrates just how out of ouch our unelected Prime Minister and his pathetic shambles of a party are with what's right and with public mood.

It's not though, as deadly and dummy say above. And remember the govenments job is to try and steer a steady course for the country, not to bow to the whims of the populace, which seem to change every 5 minutes. This issue has been around for years, and the public weren't too bothered.

I would rather have my tax paying for a retired Ghurka than for politician expenses.

Deadly:

It demonstrates the disconnect between govt and public in a very crystal clear manner. Pretty Huge to almost 60m people!! Not just on this one policy, though, that's the point.

Although I agree in context the economy is a bigger issue, again borne from a govt that has no idea how to run a bath let alone a country, unable to listen to experts or the general populace.

The public, until very recently, had a mild distain for the military (I know as I've been serving for 13 years) and it's the sad images of people being repatriated that have woken the populace up to the fact that we've been in constant operations since GW1 and need their support.

The IRA threat forced all HM forces to wear civilian clothes in public, the 80s-90s saw a huge decrease in exposure of the public to military existence. Therefore the Ghurka problem wouldn't have been seen in its correct light by anyone.

Steady course!! This administration had had a steady course of profligate spending like never before. 12 years ago we were in tremendous shape-how did we get to this if the economy has been doing so well over the last 10 years as they claim.

I sold a house back in 2003 as I,(no expert) along with many others, could see this happening like a slow speed train crash. That's 6 years ago!!!!

Huge topic, this. Just the tip of the iceberg.

I cant stand the ****ing 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.

Ok mikertroid, I accept that to you, with a military background, it's a big issue. I'm not sure any of the eejits that sit either side or end of the house would have a clue what to do at the moment, but NuLab are in power and therefore we'll beat them with the shitstick for now.

I've never had a disdain for the military. I've always thought them hard working chaps who put themselves on the line for whatever cause the politicians see fit, whether that is oil, the war on terror, a far flung piece of land in the southern oceans or propping up a corrupt majority rule in NornIrn. You see what I'm getting at here...these days, the military don't ever seem to "want" to be where they are, but there they are anyway and they do their job. Fair play and all that.

I'd challenge your "almost 60m people" figure and say that actually there are as many out there who frankly couldn't care less or perhaps put better, care about more important things than a small screen actress and her single issue. I daresay JL couldn't give a toss about the next half a million who'll be getting P45's in the next 12 months, the council tax increases we'll all have to cough up for soon, the tax rises we'll inevitably have to endure to pay for the mess that the bankers got us into etc etc. But tally ho, Daddy was a Gurkha, I'm held in fond regard by the public for my role as a sexy agent in The Avengers and as an idiot in AbFab, so if I stamp my feet loudly enough, the newspapers will send photographers and the TV stations will send cameras. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn while the country's in such a mess.

There are probably countless other issues that don't have a sleb attached that could waste equal time but hey, we don't hear about those do we. The Gurkhas can wait till we've sorted the more important stuff...it'll only be a few more years hopefully. They've waited long enough.

deadly

I agree on many points above, however the issue with the Ghurkas is PRINCIPLE and justice. Not saying the previous govt were right, but as it's wrong we need to fix it.

Agree that for many of the public ( who aren't sufficiently worldly-wise) it's a non-issue. They simply can't understand the significance or magnitude of the disconnect between Govt and Society.

Remember they work for the voters ( myself included) not the other way round.

Your comments about JL's motives and personality are out of line; she's standing up for a cause that means something to her. Many people couldn't be bothered to do so on a topic that matters to them. She's using her celebrity as a vehicle for this- fair play.

And yes, we don't ask to serve where we do. We go where HMG orders us to. That's our job. Otherwise it'd be a very bad world.

[i]But tally ho, Daddy was a Gurkha[/i]

Her father's life was saved by the actions of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tul_Bahadur_Pun ]Tul Bahadur Pun VC[/url]. Reason enough for stamping her feet, I'd have thought.

The fact that the economy is borked is neither here nor there. The Ghurkas stood by us during far worse. We owe 'em.

Her father's life was saved by the actions of Tul Bahadur Pun VC. Reason enough for stamping her feet, I'd have thought.

Cheers, I stand corrected. I thought Daddy was a gurkha. And I completely agree that the G's should be allowed to settle here. I'm generally pro-immigration, bejeebus, I am one myself (but I look and dress the same as the rest of you so it doesn't become apparent till I open my potty mouth.

I just get a mite irritated by slebs hijacking the meeja for their own ends (or the ends of the particular cause they're supporting) when we have more pressing issues. I can't see that a G would have got the meeting with GB, but a sleb that used to be pretty and be part of many grown mens' wet dreams can?

Pah, bigger things to be worrying about. I'm going to give this one a miss now, I'm coming across as far less of a bleeding heart than I am in real life. Let them all in. Can someone just untick the box in the immigration ministry's software that says "No" for pre- or post-1997 (I've forgotten which, that's how heartless I am) G's.

Anyway, can't they find work doing the portering for rich twunts climbing Everest, like their most famous brother...Gurkha Tenzing Norgay?

Anagallis

I cant stand the ****ing 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!!

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.

grizzlygus

Agreed!

Time to fix it!!

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.

Er,, whatever?!

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

Believe me I know 😉

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

Nothing [i]too[/i] obvious then ?

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.

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.

"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.

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 😉

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 [i]no[/i] 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 😯

[img] [/img]

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 ([i]not only military[/i]) 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.

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.

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.

(Terrible French spelling all over the magasin here)

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".

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

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.

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]I do[/i] 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.

"[i]They're not mercenaries by any stretch[/i] "

😀 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.

"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.

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...
[b]who is not a national or a party to the conflict[/b]
kona bunny, i think its pretty obvious that squadies cannot be mercenaries for their own country 🙄

[b]compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party[/b]
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" [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary ](wiki link)[/url]

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.

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

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6251988.ece ]Thousands join Army to escape recession[/url] 😀

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 [i]nobody[/i] does mealy-mouthed doublespeak better than us Brits!

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.

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

Yeah konabunny, I try to carefully choose my words, hence the use of the term [i]'in essence'[/i] 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:

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

Well if its of no consequence

Possible career move could be to the dark mercenary side.

Won't be expecting any rights for anything 😉