egafd.com

Reggie:

>>

Eric:

Umm yes, Reggie. The regiments may still have the same name or whatever, and the Queen may indeed have sent a letter of protocol (probably has something to do with Pakistan being a Commonwealth country like Australia or Canada). But there are no PAKISTANI regiments that are part of the BRITISH Army. The Gurkhas on the other hand ARE a fully-fledged regiment of the BRITISH Army (clue: the key word here is "British").

Reggie:

>>

Eric:

I rarely read newspapers of ANY 'wing'. Sorry.


Reggie:

>>

Eric:

No they're not. And if they're genuine cases then all well and good. But a lot are indeed "economic migrants".


Reggie:

>>

Eric:

Well, it's not 1938 but no, I wouldn't. Like I said above - I have no problem with GENUINE cases.


Reggie:

>>

Eric:

So Reggie - if putting your life on the line for the country (or at least volunteering to do so if a conflict was to arise during your time in the service) *shouldn't* qualify you to live there afterwards, what in your opinion should?

The "100,000 flooding in - oh the cost" argument is bogus anyway. Most would probably NOT choose to settle in the UK. It's simply about their right to do so if they want to.


- Eric

Gurkhas in

Muslims out

nuff said

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> Yes well I actually worked with a retired officer of the
> Pakistani Army and he told me all about the regiments, new and
> old, nothing like getting your facts direct.
>

I am not going to get bogged down in a debate about it Reggie. I'll just say you need to find a better place to get your facts from mate.

> Aside from a few mercy cases even David Caneron would never
> allow 100K retired people to suddenly move to the UK, the real
> reason for the fuss is of course over the sheer cost.
>

Green Dave is already moaning (in front of the media cameras) about it and Nick Clegg (also in front of the media cameras) has organized a debate in Parliament along with a protest outside this week.

I completely agree with you about the costs if you recall the original post by Peter was asking why the Government don't want them in I've explained that, why I think it is wrong and how it should be conditional.

Reggie:

>>

Eric:

Simply levelling the same accusation yet again almost verbatim when the point's already been addressed (see above) doesn't make it any more valid, Reggie. Move on.


Reggie:

>>

Eric:

You must have missed it first time, so I'll ask again:

If putting your life on the line for the country (or at least volunteering to do so if a conflict was to arise during your time in the service) *shouldn't* qualify you to live there afterwards, what in your opinion should?

I can't quite understand your mindset, Reggie: You seem to have no problem at all with poverty-stricken Third-Worlders (who've contributed absolutely **nothing**) entering the UK simply because they 'want a better life', yet you appear not to be in the least bothered about how much that all costs.

And yet at the same time, you appear to have a serious beef with former Gurkhas living in the UK (many of whom have put their lives on the line for the country, and all of whom have even paid taxes!) because - you say - it would 'cost too much'.

Not exactly joined-up thinking on your part, is it?!

And you have the gall to level accusations of "double standards" !nuts!.

- Eric