Status of the Ghurkas

[sp1814]

Can someone please explain to me what the Ghurkas are in relation to the 'regular' British army?

I ask, because in a thread over the past couple of days, I read that they were no more entitled to stay in the UK than any of our other war allies.

But now, I hear that Ghurka regiments have served Britain in both wold wars, the Falklands conflict, Iraq and Afghanistan.

That being the case - why on earth are some people against their settlement here?

These brave old men and their families are owed a debt by this country - can someone who wants to keep them out, please explain their reasoning?

[petal54]

i feel Ghurkas have more right to stay than alot of those who are allowed to stay,seems likely they will be allowed to stay

[whifffey]

Maybe because at top whack it could mean 36,000 immigrants + their families, i.e. well over 100,000 new entrants. That's a complete new town. Where shall we build it?

[sp1814]

Thanks petal54 - I feel that these heroes shouldn't have to prove they were awarded a medal to stay here...

I'm curious to the motives of those who want them excluded.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Is it just another example of the right wingers wanting to keep foreigners out, even if they owe their freedom to them???

[jake-the-peg]

I think the point is that the Ghurkhas are the tip of the iceberg.

What were then Colonial troops from the Carribean and India etc. all fought in the British army.

Some people here may think the Ghurkas are "special" but the law may not.

Personally I think there should be a general principal that anyone who saw active service with British forces should be entitled to live here.

If they're good enough to fight for us they're good enough to live with us.

Regardless of where they're from

[sp1814]

whifffey

You're assuming that every Ghurka wants to settle here.

They don't, do they?

[sp1814]

JTP

"Personally I think there should be a general principal that anyone who saw active service with British forces should be entitled to live here."

Yeah, I'd go for that.

whifffey - would you seriously say to these old heroes, "Yeah, I know that I enjoy the life I have now partly because of your immense bravely over the past 200 years, but you can't come here".

[anotheoldgit]

Is it just another example of the right wingers wanting to keep foreigners out, even if they owe their freedom to them???

It is not a matter of 'we owe our freedom to them' meaning the Gurkha, if you are referring to the second World War, we owe our freedom to a whole lot of nations that fought on the side of the allies, but we can't accept them all into this country.

One gets sentimental comments such as this: These brave old men and their families are owed a debt by this country, but please let's face it aren't our own country's veterans also owed a debt by this country first? But judging by the way our old (whether ex-service or civilians) are treated, they should also be owed a debt by their country, which they fail to get.

Although I admire the Gurkha's bravery and loyalty to Britain, I cannot see why they in particular should be given citizenship in our already overcrowded country.

When I have sought support for our own brave Lads & Lasses, I have been ridiculed by many on this site, among them those who are now asking support for the Gurkha.

Appertaining to our own service personnel, they have said such things as 'they are volunteers they know what they are signing up for', 'they only become soldiers because they are too thick to get a proper job', and they have even been sarcastic about the term 'our Lads & Lasses'. Not very much support given here then?

No brave as these these fellows are, their country is Nepal, and they will walk many, many miles to get the chance to join the British Army. Not just because they have a particular love of the British, but because it is a very highly paid job for them. Just like any other Mercenary.

Cont.

[anotheoldgit]

They are paid well, obtain free medical care and also gain a pension at the end of their service, but nowhere does it say they have a right to remain in Britain.

I would have been much more delighted if those that have been protesting in London over the Gurkha, had been more usefully employed by first protesting for higher pay, better living conditions, and much more up-to-date and safer equipment, for our own service personnel.

[paraffin]

The Gurkhas have unstintingly served Great Britain for 200 years by putting their lives on the line for us in numerous conflicts, more than the vast majority of indigenous Brits can claim, and many have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Let them settle here for sure, and eject the many thousands of grasping leeches who have been allowed in for donkey's years, having contributed totally nil before or since to our country's economy or wellbeing.

[Grizelda43]

A lot of people do not realise that people from the Commonwealth are given automatic right to remain in this country after they have served in the British Army for only 4 years. Why treat the Ghurka's any differently? Also the Ghurkas are not paid as well as their British and Commonwealth counterparts - just one third of what a British soldier earns. The Ghurkas have fought for us for 150 years or more, a lot longer than those from the Commonwealth. I say let them come here if they want to, but not all of them do. They will certainly teach our youngsters a lesson in good manners and tolerance.

[sp1814]

AOG

I can't understand why you wouldn't stand up to say that these brave old men (sentimental yes, but in no way inaccurate) should not be allowed to settle here.

They did not just fight for the freedoms you enjoy in WWII. They were there standing shoulder to shoulder with British regiments in WWI, the Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So the simple question is - if they fought so bravely for our freedoms, wouldn't you welcome them???

As I understand it, they were not fighting as Allied troops...they were actually fighting in British regiments.

Is that true?

[Ethel]

The Ghurka Brigade is a regiment stationed at Shorncliffe in Kent, and is a part of the British Army.

Every year 28000 youths go through the selection process for 200 posts - the 'perks' of the job give these young men a far higher standard of living than they can achieve in their native countries.
If they want the pension they must serve a minimum of 15 years.

[jno]

yes, as I understand it they're part of the British army. The Australians (etc) who fought alongside the British army did so serving their own countries. That seems a significant difference to me.

As for those other foreigners who also fought for the British: yes, let them in too. It's because they did so that we can pay our debts in sterling rather than Reichsmarks.

[paraffin]

There seems to be some confusion as to the status of the Gurkhas as far as the British armed forces go. The fact is that the Brigade of Gurkhas is a fully integrated part of the British Army whose recruits are drawn from Nepal.

Theirs is a proud history from their origins in the 19th century as part of the British Indian Army prior to India's independence, having been part of the East India Company before that.

They have been intrinsically linked to Great Britain for the best part of two centuries and have given unswerving allegiance to us throughout numerous conflicts in many corners of the world, with many of their number paying the ultimate price for such loyalty.

They are not simply a group wishing to settle in the UK, they have a just and irrefutable right in my humble opinion, and the sooner the better.

[buildersmate]

We are only dealing with Gurkhas recruited prior to 1997, when the Gurkha base in Hong Kong came back to the UK. All the rest of them have the right to stay here anyway. So that includes all of those who may have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan (though not the Falklands).
As others have pointed out, this is yet another tip of another iceberg. It isn't just the soldiers - its families and extended others etc. etc.
Commonwealth soldiers may well be able to stay here after 4 years - its in their employment contract (as it is with the employment contracts of post-1997 Gurkhas). It wasn't in the employment contracts of pre-1997 Ghurkas.
Mark my words, this is the thin end of the wedge. The next campaign will be for Iraqi and Afghanistani interpreters to stay here - they also put their lives on the line to work for us - and are paid incredibly well for the dangers.
Then let's extend the campaign to local workers in UK embassies wordwide - and their families. What's the difference? - they are local workers employed by HM Government - as the Gurkhas were in Hong Kong.

[saxy_jag]

To answer the original question, this is what they are in relation to the British Army. And to echo jake-the-peg, if they're good enough to fight as part of our Army, they're good enough to live with us.

Those of us who work pay taxes to support those who no longer can. Unfortunately we also have to support those - immigrant and indigenous to the UK - who have no intention of doing anything of the like.

I know whose pension I'd rather pay.

[paraffin]

builder:

"...the thin end of the wedge...." "...Afghanistani interpreters..."
"...local workers in UK embassies...." "What's the difference?"

What a load of scaremongering twaddle! And actually daring to compare the Gurkhas to office workers is about as accurate as lumping Mother Theresa with Saddam Hussein!
How many military campaigns have the interpreters and embassy workers taken part in with British Forces? .....Sorry?...Aaaahhh...? NONE, that's how many! And the Gurkhas? Hundreds!

Have you ever been in the Forces, builder? I reckon I'd win money on the answer if I was a betting man. How often has your life been put on the line for your country? Are you even British? Do you live in the UK? Pathetic.

[Lonnie]

I served for two years with contigments of 10th Gurkha Brigade. (this Brigade is no more)

Its true that they don't have an automatic right to settle here, but it should be.

To actually live and go into actionwith them, is an incredible experience, and you should see the pride that they have in serving this country.

They are a fantastic people, and as soldiers soldiering for this country, are second to none.

[chattykathy]

The one thing that has really got on my nerves with this whole sitation is David Cameron having the nerve to jump on the bandwagon when his own political party didn't do a thing for years!!! What an opportunist! Can't stand the upper class twit!
At least the Labour party has tried to address the situation albeit rather badly.

[tamborine]

I dont want to keep them out got that fixed! There is no national service in Nepal and the gurkas volunteer their service. Their own traditions/culture/loyalties will dissipate living in UK.

I would prefer them to have pensions & any medical help needed but be left for them to live according to their traditions.