Gurkhas betrayed again!

Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
3,409
the UK socialist Govt., in spite of high court rulings has again denied the gurkhas rights to residency here in the UK.

the (irr)responsible minister said "It has never been the case that all Gurkhas pre-1997 were to be allowed to stay in the country. With their dependents you could be looking at 100,000 people."

aside from the fact that the highest courts say the law does allow them, the number of dependents that they refer to as why they can't be allowed is ludicrously small compared to the numbers of other nations they let in illegally, the numbers that have overstayed their visas, and the numbers they've lost track of. they just had a big stink about arresting suspected terrorists who had been allowed in on student visas to attend non-existant universities, 10,000 a year from pakistan alone - and that's just the ones attending bogus uni's, not counting dropouts and ones that never attended at all. another 100,000 of the hardest working pro-british people i could possibly think of would be an asset to the economy. get rid of the 500,000 illegals on welfare if you want to save money, get rid of the other 1,000,000 holding down illegal low paid jobs legal residences would have had (but at higher than slave wages); barring people who have served the UK so nobly is yet another sign of a morally bankrupt govt.
 
Last edited:
I was going to post on this but K man beat me to it.

I now, officially, have no respect for the the government and the "law" it represents.
How can one respect and uphold the most double standardised regime in the 1st world today? The US have their nutty policies too, but they dont pretend to be saintly like the british do.
One BIG cultural marker I have observed in my time here is the class system. Similiar to the indian caste system but hotly denied by its supporters.
It can't last though. The British People are not idiots, they will wake up. Dont forget that this is the nation that resisted and defeated the strength of the Reich.
They will wake up and see and then they will be angry. Lets see what the that idiot Jacqui Smith does about it.

Plus I want to add everything kronckew said with a few !!!!! marks added.
 
That is really sad. Men of the calibre of the Gurkhas are a credit to any nation or people.
 
It's an outrage. The gurkhas have been the most loyal and honourable soldiers and allies who proved themselves time and again in battle.
Shameful and disgusting!
 
BBC website has a few comments by Brits, who suggest throwing out radicals and others on the dole. This would thus make room available for the Gurkhas and their immediate families to take residence.
 
Absolutely disgusting. I don't understand the logic. This is a group of people who have fought and died for the Queen, if anyone should be given citizenship, it's them.
 
Absolutely disgusting. I don't understand the logic. This is a group of people who have fought and died for the Queen, if anyone should be given citizenship, it's them.

Fought for what? A corrupt Empire, yes. Wars are no fought for honor and security, they are fought for profit.

The Gurkhas did it because they had to and they were made a promise.
Their promise has been broken time and time again.

I agree, these are good people who deserve better and yes, the British people agree that they should be given what they have been promised.
Thats why I say the British will not sleep for long, they are going to wake up and be mighty peeved at what has been going on while they have been sleeping inside their warm, protective nests filled with junk food and reality TV.

man..dont even get me STARTED on her Majesty the Queen and the rest of her disgraceful brood.
 
Last edited:
This thread is getting nasty, but this is a nasty business.
Note to the Mods: Please forgive us for our strong opinions, they may get a little politically incorrect.

Note to myself: Screw political correctness right in the face. Political correctness is 100% of the problem.

Note to fellow forumites: carry on as you were, ladies and gentlemen
 
Here's what I might propose: as with America, the ethnic makeup of the British isles is changing, and some people don't like it.
Not that this is anything new, since after wave after wave of successive invasions (pre-Celtic monument builders, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans), I consider Britain to be nearly as much ofa melting pot as America. (In fact, we probably learned that way of doing things from them!) But this still doesn't please many of the more conservative bent, and now that in London (as one travel guide put it) "Indian Curry places now outnumber fish-and-chips joints," some people see diversity as a cultural Katrina, a ruinous storm that needs to be held back.
It's horse-puckey, for course; the Gurkhas would sure get residence here, if they fought for us! But as that same guide put it, the Britain is "becoming a microcosm of the empire that it used to rule," and while that stands to give the Empire a new, noble kind of legacy, some people won't see it that way.

They should learn to think of it this way: who would you rather have for a neighbor? A spoiled, ignorant, bigot who's had everything handed to him, and never done any real service to anyone? Or a brave, hard-working man who's brought himself up from scratch by fighting for your country in all 4 corners of the Earth? Last I checked, the latter was more in keeping with the classically British traits that Anglophiles admire: courage, dignity, chivalry, and civic justice.
King Arthur, to make it clear, would have accepted the Gurkhas in a heartbeat......
 
A very nasty decision made Her Majesty's Government ...I wonder how many of them have served their country as proudly and at such cost as the loyal Gurkhas? :(
 
one of the reasons they mentioned on the news yesterday is that "the gurkhas are just mercenaries and have no loyalty to the country". one veteran stated he'd give up part of his pension to allow one more gurkha to live here, and suggested most vets would be happy to do the same.

they socialist labour party is a bunch of
imagesass-20hole-small.jpg


they're the ones who do not have any loyalty, most have not done any military service, and i think they are wildly out of touch with reality and public opinion on more than one plane. they however will never admit responsibility for anything, no ministers ever resign, when caught doing something wrong they get a wrist slap and get returned to power as soon as the party thinks the public has forgotten. if they get caught again, it's off to brussels for a while, then return to power with a lordship as well. any problem is someone else fault, and anytime they do anything unpopular, illegal, immoral or fattening, they always try to shift blame on the opposition by saying, well, if the <insert any party but 'new' labour> were in power they'd do <insert lie here>. last i heard they did not set the oppositions policies for them. (yet)
 
IMO the Ghurkas should tell the UK to piss off.

I don't mean to be overly harsh on the UK, either. It seems every western nation's government is flushing those countries down the crapper. Taking everything good and right, and pawning it off for dirt and tinsel.

I'm really disgusted. In the old days countries knew how to take care of their loyal friends. Nowadays. . .not so much.
 
Sadly, the current US president is too busy brown-nosing with the Communist leaders of South & Central America. But if it were me, I'd be HONORED to bring the Ghurkas into the fold here.. IMHO, the British government is making one of the biggest mistakes in her history.. Mercenaries?! Last time I checked, mercs are in it for the $$$. Ghurkas aren't. If you ask me, that's a slap in the face to the warriors that have saved the Crown's bacon countless times....
 
Sadly, the current US president is too busy brown-nosing with the Communist leaders of South & Central America. But if it were me, I'd be HONORED to bring the Ghurkas into the fold here.. IMHO, the British government is making one of the biggest mistakes in her history.. Mercenaries?! Last time I checked, mercs are in it for the $$$. Ghurkas aren't. If you ask me, that's a slap in the face to the warriors that have saved the Crown's bacon countless times....

Yes and yes!

Mercenaries working for US or UK forces do get ALOT of money..I mean a S%$£T load!

If Gurkhas were mercenaries, then they would not want or need to move to Britain, they would retire and live as kings in Nepal, if they were paid as mercenaries.
Who said that anyway?? What fat, overfed labour :jerkit:er said they were mercenaries?? I'd like to know so I can put that person on the mulehole list on Wikipedia.

Its always been this way in UK and wont change, blue collar man is 2nd class citizen and brown man is 3rd class.

Maybe thats why so many people want to blow this place up.
 
Yes and yes!
...
Who said that anyway?? What fat, overfed labour :jerkit:er said they were mercenaries??
...

it was actually 1st in a bit by a reporter at 'the independent', who are a liberal party affiliate, appears to be copied from the reuters news service: Linky

the minister mentioned did not say it directly, but he's an arse wipe anyway.

read the comments there, 99.99% pro gurkha, tho there are one or two arsewipes.

another linky to the bbc 'any questions' radio show from saturday does have a labour party turd trying to justify it. (starts about 2 min. into the clip) he's liam burn, a cabinet minister. he also gets jumped on by most. brings up that people serving in commonwealth armies can get uk residency after 4 years service, not even in the UK armed forces like the gurkhas. makes interesting listening. (the 'shadow' references means that they are in the opposition party against the labour party & 'shadow' one of them to expose their failings.)

yet another, the sequel to 'any questions' called 'any answers' starts off with a gurkha major's comments, where they discuss the 'mercenary' issue at length where someone (who wrote in, is named) calls them mercenaries. this is the bit i was referring to in the earlier post. again, the general comments were that calling them mercenaries was disgraceful.

i traced 'gurkha mercenaries' thru reuters to an original comment by a nepali govt. minister - surprise -surprise, he was a communist, and even he said that the gurkhas should feel like mercenaries, he didn't have the guts to say they were.

another ref. at reuters by a disgruntled indian troll called the ones in the indian army mercenaries & was promptly demolished in the comments.

i'd imagine there are some ex-gurkha's serving in private security arrangements that might be called mercenaries, but the ones serving in the british (and indian) armies enlisted in them much the same as is done in any other army enlisting foreign nationals, including the US.

when i was in the service in the late 60's early 70's, the stewards on board the ships i served on were phillippine nationals, who would receive not only a pension after 20 yrs. service, but US citizenship if desired. they were USCG enlisted men just like any others. (damn good cooks too)

i was paid for my service, does that make me or anu other US serviceman a mercenary? i guess al quaeda supporters, taliban and the tranzi's of the world probably do think so.
 
Last edited:
another article in the (liberal party affiliated) newspaper 'the independent' by one of their commentators:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Our unspoken debt to foreign soldiers

Brown preaches about 'Great British Values', Is the treatment of Gurkhas one of them?

Monday, 27 April 2009

People often try and trip up ardent Republicans like myself by asking the killer question: "So who would you have as a President then, huh? Who? Red Ken or someone like Putin or Idi Amin maybe?" To which I have the perfect answer today: our ab fab Joanna Lumley, cultivated and ageless, her accent more polished than royal silver, loyal ally of the Gurkha soldiers betrayed repeatedly by the nation they have served. Year after year she campaigns with elegance, keeping in check the fury and frustration she must feel (God alone knows how).

Now comes another blow, treacherous and entirely unexpected. Or perhaps not. Under New Labour no trickery should be unexpected. These political dilettantes in power do not honour promises, court judgments, binding obligations nor the seriousness of office. Gurkhas are nothing to them, so are casually discarded, like used up shells or cartridges.

Paid substantially less than white soldiers, they received lower rates of compensation and pension benefits too, these legendary warriors who have helped secure victories in the major wars undertaken by this state. They were barred from living in this country too. Then a High Court victory last year gave them the right of entry and settlement, entitlements available to white veterans from Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Canada and the US. Back in 1968 Labour institutionalised racist immigration treatment which is now embedded.

Mr Justice Blake praised Gurkha soldiers for the services they had rendered and declared an end to discriminatory rules. Over my dead body, responded Immigration minister Phil Woolas, the posturing Cabinet bovverboy who does tough and rough preposterously, like a bad actor in amateur dramatics. He rushed through a new set of impossible regulations that exclude most of those who might have benefited from the court judgment. Ms Lumley should stick Woolas in her cigarette holder and smoke him for breakfast.

Gordon Brown preaches to us incessantly about "Great British values". Is this one of them? I fear so. Perfidious Albion has long enlisted army personnel from the old empire and treated them most shabbily. I have never understood why so many joined up and still do, knowing that they fight for a Motherland which cannot value their sacrifices or treat them as she does her own. Colonialism leaves the ruled both humiliated and overawed long after the masters creep back home; the rulers meanwhile cannot shed the tendency to exploit and demean those they consider beneath their own civilisations.

The children and grandchildren of the rejected Gurkhas and others will continue to join up. Britain expects no less. Fijians and African nationals are today being maimed and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thirty-eight Commonwealth nationalities are represented in our forces and one in ten new trainees are non-British. They have come in since a recruitment drive was started nearly a decade back. Just as Pakistanis were lured to work in heavy industries fifty years ago and Caribbean folk were invited over to work in the NHS. They were and are needed, but that doesn't bring them value or respect. The MoD does take care of the wounded, but some families say their boys are too soon forgotten and do not get what they are owed.

Tragically the story never changes. Twenty years ago, Caroline Adams wrote about Bangladeshis in the East End of London, many of whom had fought for the Allies. Mr Nawab Ali is quoted: "I was in Port Said when the Queen came there, she was Princess Elizabeth then. She said we will win this war and when we do, there will be pensions for everyone who fought. I am still waiting for my pension. Britain wanted us then. Now people have forgotten about that."

In the First World War the West Indian regiment was deployed and cash contributions of over two million plus goods were sent over from the Caribbean islands. Academic research shows these soldiers suffered extra awful hardships &#8211; insanitary conditions, poor diets and inadequate medical care.

Inequality made it feel worse. Letters by Indian soldiers of the Great War reveal their moving patriotism: "It is noble fate for us to be allowed to sacrifice our bodies for our King ... if we die on the field this is equal to entering heaven" and their degradation: "I was on a motor lorry and the lorry fellows being European didn't like to sleep with me being an Indian ... the hatred between the Europeans and Indians is increasing and it is not the fault of the Indians."

Some believe they are sent to the front to take the most punishing attacks. A monument was built in the South Downs for these men, unveiled by the then Prince of Wales in 1921, who said: "Future generations should not forget that our Indian comrades came when our need was highest, free men ... who were true to their salt." Some hope.

During the Second World War, it was more of the same. Testimonies show how prejudices kept down black men and women who signed up. Indians made up the largest ever voluntary war force &#8211; two and a half million men &#8211; and many, including Muslims, received the highest honours. However, until recently, surviving Indian veterans were not invited to commemorations. Baroness Shreela Flather and others finally got a permanent memorial near Buckingham Palace to the countless soldiers of colour who fought for Britain.

Ask British schoolchildren to visualise a brave wartime soldier and they will not think of an Indian or African &#8211; nor do the movies or most wartime best sellers. History forgets their contribution; this nation neglects their needs. There is no burning wish by the powerful to acknowledge earlier injustices or do better by those who still want to fight in our army. There is no shame and no guilt either.

The academic John Carey once wrote: "One of history's most useful tasks is to bring home to us keenly, honestly and painfully, how past generations pursued aims that now seem to us wrong or disgraceful." When it comes to our soldiers of colour, those aims and disgraceful behaviours carry on ad nauseam, unmoved even when looking at the dignified faces of the old Gurkha soldiers debased once more by the state they serve.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top