Ghurkas

Home Forum Chat Forum Ghurkas

Viewing 8 posts - 46 through 53 (of 53 total)
  • Ghurkas
  • nukeproof
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon coolhandluke
    Subscriber

    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.

    scraprider
    Member

    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,

    Premier Icon cinnamon_girl
    Subscriber

    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.

    notlocal
    Member

    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?

    woffle
    Member

    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)

Viewing 8 posts - 46 through 53 (of 53 total)

The topic ‘Ghurkas’ is closed to new replies.