Britain does the Gurkha,s proud !

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Apart from Gurkhas in HK and Brunei , they were also regiments based in the UK eg Aldershot & Chatham , it is a disgrace the way they have been treated. Their bravery in the Falklands campaign , Iraq and Bosnia is equal to what their soldiers have shown over the last 200 years in the service of the British Army.

 

[Knotty]

They are allowed to die for us but not to live with us.

Disgusting.

 

[Slough Seagull]

They are allowed to die for us but not to live with us.

Disgusting.

and to think they could have probably saved themselves a lot of problems by answering a few questions to become 'British' rather than putting their lives on the line... what a joke this country is.

 

[kjgood]

Apart from Gurkhas in HK and Brunei , they were also regiments based in the UK eg Aldershot & Chatham , it is a disgrace the way they have been treated. Their bravery in the Falklands campaign , Iraq and Bosnia is equal to what their soldiers have shown over the last 200 years in the service of the British Army.

Having proudly served with them, 6th Queen Elizabeths Own Gurkha Rifles, 2 Royal Gurkha Rifles both in Brunei and elsewhere in the world where they performed with distinction, and The Gurkha Demonstration Company in Brecon and also with 5 Airborne in Aldershot/Church Crookham, I can only admire the Gurkha Soldier.

I sat on the amalgumation Board making decisions about who was to be made redundant and who was to stay when the Gurkha Battalions were being reduced in numbers in about 1994. I also had an inspection function in Nepal, therefore feel I am qualified to discuss the way that the Gurkha soldier has been treated by the UK government.

I believe that the Gurkha soldier should have a residency right in the UK and that if residing in the UK should have the same UK pension as a british soldier pro rata with the number of years served. A gurkha soldier will usually have served less time (18 years) than a standard british soldier (22 years) to get his full pension.

However if the Gurkha decides to return to Nepal to live then his pension should be reduced to that which would provide an equal quality of life in a cheaper environment, and not enable him to live like a king. The choice is his. But give the Gurkha soldier a fair deal.

Jai Gurkha

 

[Frutos]

If the Gurkhas (or anyone else) is willing to put their lives on the line in the defence of this country, that should entitle them to anything that they want from us, be it a home, medical care, a pension or whatever else.

My Dad told a story of serving with some Gurkhas when he was in the Forces on an exercise in Saudi Arabia. While over there, they got a daily allowance for food etc..., and the Gurkha soldiers were amazed that they were given the same amount as the 'regular' soldiers, so accustomed were they to being treated as second class citizens even while still serving.

 

[larus]

Yet another clear example of this government being totally out of touch with public opinion. The cost to this country will be, (in relative terms), small beer. Compare the cost of doing the honourable thing here, to the cost of the failures of this government.

 

[glasfryn]

If we are going to allow Ghurkhas residency here, why are we not opening our doors to all the other Commonwealth citizens who have fought alongside British troops? Surely they have an equal claim, and that could equate to thousands of people.

And as to the French, they should be asking those so called asylum seekers on their side of the channel, who are in a safe country, whether they want to claim asylum in France - if they do not then they should deport they back to their own countries.

The Ghurkhas come from Nepal and Nepal is not and never has been part of the British commonwealth therein lies the anomaly they are part of the British Army but not British,or British commonwealth citizens.
IMHO they should have the run of the British Isles,they have fought alongside British troops for many years (over 200) and if you make a study of the war in Burma,they helped the few British troops that were there to hold off the Japanese from over running India.
they are the epitome of what the fighting man is and this country should be thankful we have them in our Army and this and other governments treatment of them is a disgrace

 

[Stoo82]

In the paper (the one released by the government. They very nicly said that anyone (officer) that has served over 20 years is allowed to stay.

Problem is, they only have to serve 15 years (which most of them do and then retire).

 

[NMH]

I am reading a lot of opinion that leans toward their side of the argument, and I'd agree that is worthy - and well founded.
However, I have to wonder what the Government side of this case is, what ARE the arguments against them gaining full rights?

 

[Stoo82]

I am reading a lot of opinion that leans toward their side of the argument, and I'd agree that is worthy - and well founded.
However, I have to wonder what the Government side of this case is, what ARE the arguments against them gaining full rights?

None.

Lets face it. I think; that gurkas who joined after 1997 are allowed in. Anyone bfour that is not.

I guess they are too old and will need medical help so it will cost alot.

 

[User removed 4]

Do you actually know the facts of the case. The case surrounds those who served in the Ghurkas before 1997, when they were based in Hong Kong. It's entirely possible that none of them ever set foot in the UK while they were serving. All that served since 97 are entitled to settle here and bring their families over.

So what if they only served in hong kong ? At least they served us , unlike a lot of the dogshit we do let in.

 

[User removed 4]

None.

Lets face it. I think; that gurkas who joined after 1997 are allowed in. Anyone bfour that is not.

I guess they are too old and will need medical help so it will cost alot.

More than the thousands of aids ridden f***ing africans that we do treat?

 

[jakarta]

How about.....

Anyone, from anywhere, who wants to join our armed forces for a period of say 10 years and serves his time without a dishonourable discharge, automatically becomes a British Citizen, including their dependents?

If we can put up with old hook hand Hamzah et al who have done f*ck all except slag this country off then surely this isn't a bad criteria?

Just a thought......