The Great British DISGRACE...The Gurkhas

Ive titled this The Great British Disgrace..The Gurkha's, because i feel that this "once" great country has seriously LET DOWN very brave people who served this country, many gave their lives.

Let me get to the point,
Last March, the Government said that all the Army’s Nepalese fighters who retired after 1997 would be entitled to pay and pension equal with the rest of the Army and would be allowed to settle in Britain.
Oh how nice of the British Government

For those who retired before 1997, their pensions remained six times less than their British counterparts and they still have no automatic right to stay in Britain. They are campaigning to be treated the same as the other Gurkhas.
yeah ..read that bit again?

So basically the Government are saying "shove-it" and get to the back of the line, all the brave Gurkha's who fought for Britain but retired pre 1997, have got to get to the back of the line......No wait a minute, there are still some more people before the brave Gurkha's, yes you got it , its any "tom, dick or harry" from ANY country within the european union, have even more rights in this country than those brave men of the Gurkha's

— More than 200,000 Gurkhas have fought for Britain around the world. Thirteen have been awarded the Victoria Cross
— About 43,000 Gurkhas died fighting in the two world wars
— The motto of the Gurkha is: “Better to die than be a coward”

One e.g.:
Khagu Mall, 55, served in the Army for 17 years. When he retired in 1985, he was shipped back to Nepal and it took him more than two decades to work his way through the Home Office immigration process as a civilian and return to Britain.

His wife could not get permission to come with him so Mr Mall lives with his 26-year-old student son in a flat in London. His army pension is £115 a month. His rent is almost twice that.

Mr Prime Minister...I hope your happy

because i as a British citizen AM DISGUSTED

I agree; the British Government should give all retired Gurkhas who served with the British Army should be given the right to reside in the UK - these are immensely brave men, just like the rest of the British armed forces, and deserve to be treated with the respect we bestow upon troops originally from the UK. These aren't just random people from foreign countries; these are people who have voluntarily joined the UK armed forces (despite not being British) and are considered to be amongst the best soldiers in the world. They have served our country with distinction despite not being born here, and I think we owe them a great deal for their services and sacrifices.

Of course I supose that such small and triffling little matters like existing and binding legal international treaties are an inconvenient irritating issue to just be swept aside and ignored
(often to facillitate a bash at this Gov.....which was afterall the one that liberalised and improved matters considerably over what had gone before)?

British-Indian-Nepal Tripartite Agreement

Also, I suppose no-one has given any consideration to the fact that the Nepalese as a nation mignt not be too keen on so many of their (relatively well off & moneyed) people being entitled & encouraged to drain away out of their (extremely poor) country/economy & into the UK?

I'm all for recognising the debt this country owes to the Nepalese people in relation to this matter (amongst others) but I'm far from sure this issue is as black and white as some wish to paint it.

I'm not so sure that the distorting effects of foreign army recruitment is something that ought to be ignored.

According to a Radio 4 program on the topic this week in Nepal the number one aim of most able-bodied young men is to join the British Army, second comes the Indian Army, third the Nepalese Army and if they fail to get into any of those then the Nepalese Police comes a distant fourth.

That doesn't strike me as 'good' and nor do measures which accelerate the drain away of young men & those ex-servicemen on their now relatively excellent pensions (recently lifted t oUK standards) out there.

Maybe there is a legal dimension but the assumption is being made that they would all want to live here after their service therefore depriving Nepal of their wealth and experience and future generations. Some may want to return home, some may well want to remain here or have the freedom to come an go as they please, but the irrefutable argument is that they should have the choice.

This government welcomes EVERYONE and god knows who else, yet shun these loyal servants of the crown. We should be flattered they would want to live amongst us and welcome them with open arms.
They're happy to allow the dregs of the world to suck at the teat of the British taxpayer (not a nice picture) in order to keep them, their fat ugly wives and gross blubbery sons on the gravy train, but purse their little mouths at the thought of allowing retired Ghurkas residence.

Having to watch these proud people hand back hard won medals brings even further shame on an already discredited government, do they care?........doubt it.
Nobody is saying all of those who served will want to stay in the country,
Duel citizanship at the least.

You say about the fact that no-one has given consideration on how it will effect the financial basis of this very poor country of Nepal, well don't think that would be a problem as many have close family still in Nepal and financially support family back in Nepal. The financial loss is therefore pretty much non existant.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by spymaster]

There's no "maybe" about it Spymaster, there is a tripartite international agreement and I have provided the link for it in my post above.

My complaint is just the manner in which the usual simplistic & 2 dimensional 'tabloid-ese' is used in this country to bash this current UK Gov.

It's a bash which is at odds with the facts IMO.

It was this UK Gov, it ought to be remembered, that actually saw Gurkha's given Army pensions to a UK standard and which opened up the right of Gurkha's to live in the UK, from 1997
(the date of this UK Gov beginning in office here).

Given the international agreements etc I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do.

I'm also interesteed to see why people's ire is directed at this Gov which did the right thing and not the previous tory Gov which had almost 20 years to do the right thing in regard to these issues (both pensions & residency) and never once did.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by sminkeypinkey]

Yes Sminkey i read it twice and followed various links from ..thank you


Im genuinly unsure of what simplistic & 2 dimensional "tabloid-ese" means TBH, so i cannot answere that one?


So does this not seem a bit odd how the labour goverment do not want to recognise the Gurka's service before 1997?

IMO, There is little doubt but that this obscenity of a "government", will harbour ANYBODY that it has bought and paid for, from misguided Labour voters to scaborous economic migrants who have the Labia Party to thank for their handouts and protection, while those who genuinely work and serve this once proud country can hang.
But as usual this sorry excuse for a government has once again shown its true colours, they dont seem to have an issue with convicted murderers being granted citizenship/asylum whatever you call it because they havent been in there own country for years but because you have served the crown with honour and distinction and have happened to have been out of service since 1997 its tough, I am utterly disgusted and ashamed of the people that represent us in westminster.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by spymaster]

Guys and girls, sign the follwoing petition here at the Downing Street website:

petitions.pm.gov.uk...

Might as well make a show of Democracy, hey?

Sminkey don't you think the Nepal government would benerfit if we let some of their old folk live here? You say Nepal is poor but arne't old people are expensive?
Of course if you leave the forces at 55 (or whatever) you've still got a few years of potential labour ahead of you, but as a generalisation I doubt very much that the tax the government extracts will be enough to pay for the resources you take up.

Originally Posted by Sminkey


Maybe its because ten years is a very long time?
Or perhaps its because when you here of things like 2500 post offices closing, you might believe that when Gordon Brown invited Margerett Thatcher to Downing Street; she secretely stayed behind.

It is a national disgrace that we treat other nationals better than those that have a long and proud tradition of fighting for and supporting us.
However, to single out this government is slightly unfair.
Their treatment has improved under New Labour. Countless governments before hand did nothing to redress the situation.

You know what mate, youre absolutely right.

But yet, im not surprised because this government has always cared more about the low, the scummy, the disgusting and the downright criminal minded than the honest citizen.

They let in somalian immigrants who cant speak english and yet shun those who have shed their blood on the battlefields for us.

Pathetic.