Thetownend.com

quite interesting, you can fight for this country but not stay here. what a lovely country we are


joanna lumley defending gurkha's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8014265.stm

government repost
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8016242.stm

Utterly discrasful in my opinion. They have fought for OUR country for the last 200 odd years and are not entitiled to some rights?  I think its awful that we let all these imigrants in and these days they seem to have more rights than most people....I hope Mr Brown seriously reconsiders.

I have just been reeling after seeing this on the news.  Our government/country whoever is responsible is a disgrace.  This is one cause which I would fully support wholeheartedly.

The whole thing smacks of sheer vindictiveness on the part of civil servants/ministers smarting at losing in court. Considering the amount of money they've blown on bailing out fucked up bankers, their own expenses, stupid ID card schemes that will never work anyway, failed NHS computer systems etc etc etc, the amount required to allow all the pre-97 Gurkhas who wish to settle here to do so (a few thousand at most) is peanuts. They should be utterly utterly ashamed of themselves, recognise they've got this badly wrong and just allow all those who've risked their lives for our country equal rights with the post-97 Gurkhas and Commonwealth soldiers. Then they can start looking at ways to make stuff like the Help for Heroes thing tomorrow unnecessary by properly supporting injured ex-servicemen of whatever nationality.

If they're strapped for cash to pay for it, they can start by putting a levy on failed bankers' pensions and taking back their bonuses. Fred Goodwin's pension should pay for the whole lot of the Gurkhas for a start. (And yes I know this probably isn't legally viable but it's shit like this that makes you ashamed of your country's priorities)

They are willing to put their life on the line to protect OUR countries interests then they should have the same rights as any British soldier IMO.

We have a large Nepalese population living in the area - a legacy of the Gurkhas having been based up the road in Aldershot.  Those I've met have been friendly, courteous.  This whole episode has been a huge embarrassment, the only consolation being that the Gurkhas are well aware that public opinion, by & large, is one their side.  I can see this being overturned at some point soon.

I used to hate Gherkins but now I think they're ace.

yet they let people who are trying to blow our country up stay.

Ah but who would win in a fight  Rambo or 2 Gurkhas?

Sorry, that is not possible. In the same way that Chalkie's Shorts is a tomatoist, I am a gherkinist.

Eat one and you will die a horrible, horrible death. You would turn inside out and all of your gooey bits would spill onto the floor.

Ime into Olives at the moment...not literally.

The food of the gods.

Black or green? My personal favourites are Greek Kalamatas. Yum.

Green..not to salty dipped in garlic and parsley.

Here's a petition worth signing:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/ (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/)

Not Labour's fault but an EU Directive Paul, this one:

EC Directive 2003/109/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:016:0044:0053:EN:PDF

Ghurkas who were based in Britain after 1997 conform with the EU entry requirements set out in directive above. Those who were prior to 1997 do not. It’s as simple as that.

But then the EU is an inconvenient truth so most people ignore it.

Without reading the whole thing, what are we specifically looking for? I started to read it but couldn't see anything.

In fact I read it all because the technicalities of where the pre-97 base was seems daft and if this was the case why weren't they told they couldn't reside here before now?

Anyway it says that the UK and Ireland are not participating in that directive so that busts your EU ruling myth.

Not quite, indeed you're right there was an opt-out negotiated at the Amsterdam Treaty, However under Directive 2004/38/EC all immigrants that become naturalised British citizens, also enjoy all the treaty rights granted to the individual as 'European citizens', including freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. As a result there is huge EU political pressure on the British (and British eagerness to be 'at the centre of Europe') to implement the original Directive, otherwise the UK becomes a “back door” for entry to the rest of the EU.

So the British Government have eagerly implemented the original directive - so, effectively, we have an 'opt out' de jure, but not de facto.

Think about it why would Labour - the master of spin and obsession with 'next-day' headlines - make such an issue out of a very emotive issue? Because they have no choice.

The Gurkha's are my favourite military regiment, bar none.

They are, to a man, hard as fuck.

Don't let Popeye find out !

But there is no place in the EU directive where it sets out the five criteria. The point is, the criteria are impossible to achieve. Did they have a choice in what criteria to use?

Good news!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm

"It says the vote is not binding"

I'd like to know why not. Parliament should decide as this is the democratically elected body unlike Gordon Brown who was nevber elected as PM

Because the Lib Dems proposed it and not the Government, unfortuneately.

it seems everyone has an opinion but are there any Gurkhas in the Swindon area? There are loads where I live and they are not all angels when they leave the army

Always causing trouble round here playing knock down ginger.

Sorry to be a pedantic old bastard, but nor was any other PM, either (apart from by their constituents...who bothered to vote...for them).

There are a few yes, I've known several, all quality chaps and the friendliest people I've met.

Are Gurkha's the only group of mercenaries that it's OK to like?

I've been trying to think of other examples but I'm stumped. Is it because they're mercenaries fighting for our side that they're OK?

Although thinking about it Britain's hardly alone, the Germans shat on the Turks that served in their forces, the French shat on the Algerians (and they fought for the French IN ALGERIA in a war of independence so it was quite difficult for them back home). European colonial powers have a long and unpleasant history in exploiting native troops and then abandoning them to fend for themselves I'm afraid.

The others don't seem as sympathetic as the gurkhas though. Is it the funny lopsided hats and the bent knives?

I don't see how this makes them unworthy of a pension? Fighting for our country, by whatever commanded means makes them eligible in my eyes. Are they guilty of atrocities that have had little media coverage? I fully admit I have not researched the subject in depth.

they get a Pension dont they?

Way I see it they signed up to fight to improve their lives.They get a  pension that is considerably more than they could expect in any other job in their home country.They never signed up to fight for Britian under the understanding they could come and live here afterwards so why has that changed?

It does ironically seemed to be used as an arguement against immigration though.We let so and so in why dont we let them in,blah blah meh..

I'm sure a while ago it was in the news that ghurkas living in this country got an inferior pension compared to British Army troops?

Do you think they'll set up a kukri school ?

hope so - i like kuking

Especially cakes.....

I didn't say it did. I was just trying to work out why people, including me, feel a sense of sympathy for this group of people, and just seem to lightly skip over the fact that essentially they're mercenary soldiers, a group of people that are generally regarded unsympathetically.

The very word mercenary gets bandied about as a term of abuse about all sorts of people, including footballers, and these people are actual mercenaries and everybody things they're great.

I think it's because they're cute little fellahs and they carry the bendy knives and wear the funny hats with one side of the brim folded up.

Lighten up eh no-one was slagging off the Gurkhas.

You've missed the archetypal toothy grin in that list of attributes there Lumps.

Lumps telling someone to "lighten up"  :D

I hadn't missed the irony myself. Fuck it I'm in a good mood!

The point is that they have given something for/ to this country & have done for 200 years or so.
Sure they are paid for their work, & they get a pension, (which I think is about a quarter of the pension our troops get). 
I understand that troops from the commonwealth have the right to reside after 5 (or maybe 10) years service, why can't they be treated the same.
They are no more mercenary than the many overseas people who work in the health service.
What really annoys me though is that there are so many people that we DO allow to stay, who have contributed NOTHING, to the UK.  A few high profile examples are Abu Hamza's hareem, the Afgani Hi jackers, the Somali who killed someone driving with no license or insurance etc etc etc.

To me this is just another example of how Brown & his cronies are so out of touch with the people of this country. They do nothing about killers, murderers, & terrorists here, but treat those who put their lifes on the line for this country like shit.

there is another side to this in that in Nepal an ex-army pension (even the lower one given to Ghurkas) is a lot of money. These guys will go on to open businesses that add value to the Nepalese economy - a mass migration to here may cause problems and we also don't know what the Nepalese government have been lobbying for.
Just a thought.