What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Are you drumming up support for the Tories?
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Unlike most I actually joined the campaign:
The Gurkha's are some of the best fighting men in the world at it should also be remembered that in World War 2 in particular were often used like many other foreign allies for what can be basically be termed as cannon fodder.
Although I haven't seen the decision by the court in full I wouldn't be surprised if it set off alarm bells and created the conditioned outcome, which in most cases is wrong.
That said the Nepalese reason for joining these days has to be understood, for most it is a career choice - even with the consequences that can happen and without certain restrictions it could mean a considerable influx into the UK.
The restrictions are to harsh and should be related to a maximum time served which can be achieved or gallantry and injuries.
The reason restrictions are needed is because of the career choice option without it you could get limited sign up and recruits not soldiering but biding their time to getting to the UK.
The Gurkha's are some of the best fighting men in the world at it should also be remembered that in World War 2 in particular were often used like many other foreign allies for what can be basically be termed as cannon fodder.
Although I haven't seen the decision by the court in full I wouldn't be surprised if it set off alarm bells and created the conditioned outcome, which in most cases is wrong.
That said the Nepalese reason for joining these days has to be understood, for most it is a career choice - even with the consequences that can happen and without certain restrictions it could mean a considerable influx into the UK.
The restrictions are to harsh and should be related to a maximum time served which can be achieved or gallantry and injuries.
The reason restrictions are needed is because of the career choice option without it you could get limited sign up and recruits not soldiering but biding their time to getting to the UK.
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
The trouble is Reggie, ordinary riflemen are limited to 15 years' service from the outset. It's only officers who can put in 20.
That's one of the things that the campaigners are so upset about (and rightly so).
And as a "Labour man", surely you must be on the side of the ordinary squaddie, right?
The government's argument that "we can't have potentially 100,000 coming here and swamping the health service ...." is also completely bogus, given that they're perfectly happy to welcome with open arms far more than that number of asylum seekers and assorted other "economic migrants" / wasters from various far-flung corners of the Third World - none of whom (as others have pointed out) have ever contributed a thing to the UK.
Personally, I'd favour something along the lines of the French model: Do five years service in the French Foreign Legion (by no means a cushy option) and you automatically qualify for French citizenship and all the associated rights & benefits.
- Eric
>>
The trouble is Reggie, ordinary riflemen are limited to 15 years' service from the outset. It's only officers who can put in 20.
That's one of the things that the campaigners are so upset about (and rightly so).
And as a "Labour man", surely you must be on the side of the ordinary squaddie, right?
The government's argument that "we can't have potentially 100,000 coming here and swamping the health service ...." is also completely bogus, given that they're perfectly happy to welcome with open arms far more than that number of asylum seekers and assorted other "economic migrants" / wasters from various far-flung corners of the Third World - none of whom (as others have pointed out) have ever contributed a thing to the UK.
Personally, I'd favour something along the lines of the French model: Do five years service in the French Foreign Legion (by no means a cushy option) and you automatically qualify for French citizenship and all the associated rights & benefits.
- Eric
-
JonnyHungwell
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
It would help if more of them looked like this:
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/ ... hina13.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/ ... hina13.jpg[/img]
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
Well if it doesn't - it fucking well should.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>>
Eric replies:
Whereas all these "asylum seekers" / "economic migrants" have contributed and did pay NI??????
In any case, AFAIK armed forces personnel DO pay normal NI like everyone else.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
They do get a pension, yes.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
See my point about asylum seekers again.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
I think you'll find that many of them are. The UK immigration system is also a shambles - no-one really knows how many there are. And all anyone has to do is turn up, claim "ASYLUM" and they can stay indefinitely until their case gets sorted out (and we all know how slowly the wheels of bureaucracy turn).
Reggie Perrin wrote:
There are British regiments which still exist and serve in places like Pakistan, but the regiment is completely Pakistani in every sense. Now they are going to want to come here when they retire if you let other regiments in.>>>
Eric replies:
Sorry Reggie, but that's just plain wrong. It hasn't been that way since 1947. You're thinking of Britain's old, pre-independence Indian Army when you had things like the Punjabi and Sikh regiments. After Partition, something like 2/3 of the Indian Army became the ... ahem ... Indian Army, and the rest became the Pakistani Army. Nothing to do with the British Army any more and completely independent.
The Ghurkas HAD BEEN part of the pre-independence Indian Army, but they alone from that organisation remained part of the British Army.
But in any case - to all those old Indian / Pakistani soldiers who fought in the (British) Army in WWII and put their lives on the line for King & Country, I'd also say "welcome aboard".
- Eric
>>
Eric replies:
Well if it doesn't - it fucking well should.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>>
Eric replies:
Whereas all these "asylum seekers" / "economic migrants" have contributed and did pay NI??????
In any case, AFAIK armed forces personnel DO pay normal NI like everyone else.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
They do get a pension, yes.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
See my point about asylum seekers again.
Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
Eric replies:
I think you'll find that many of them are. The UK immigration system is also a shambles - no-one really knows how many there are. And all anyone has to do is turn up, claim "ASYLUM" and they can stay indefinitely until their case gets sorted out (and we all know how slowly the wheels of bureaucracy turn).
Reggie Perrin wrote:
There are British regiments which still exist and serve in places like Pakistan, but the regiment is completely Pakistani in every sense. Now they are going to want to come here when they retire if you let other regiments in.>>>
Eric replies:
Sorry Reggie, but that's just plain wrong. It hasn't been that way since 1947. You're thinking of Britain's old, pre-independence Indian Army when you had things like the Punjabi and Sikh regiments. After Partition, something like 2/3 of the Indian Army became the ... ahem ... Indian Army, and the rest became the Pakistani Army. Nothing to do with the British Army any more and completely independent.
The Ghurkas HAD BEEN part of the pre-independence Indian Army, but they alone from that organisation remained part of the British Army.
But in any case - to all those old Indian / Pakistani soldiers who fought in the (British) Army in WWII and put their lives on the line for King & Country, I'd also say "welcome aboard".
- Eric
Re: What's the problem with Gurkhas?
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> There are British regiments which still exist and serve in
> places like Pakistan, but the regiment is completely Pakistani
> in every sense.
Not sure I agree with that Reggie:
> It's not going to happen of course and it is divisive to say that one regiment is better than another.
>
Saying one regiment is better than the other is divisive but only in terms of motivation. Para's v RM for example.
It is not and never will be divisive just for the sake of it.
> There are British regiments which still exist and serve in
> places like Pakistan, but the regiment is completely Pakistani
> in every sense.
Not sure I agree with that Reggie:
> It's not going to happen of course and it is divisive to say that one regiment is better than another.
>
Saying one regiment is better than the other is divisive but only in terms of motivation. Para's v RM for example.
It is not and never will be divisive just for the sake of it.