Jump to content

Ghurkas Win Court Battle


manshimajin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why should it? Service does not mean that individuals are truly fighting for their own people or for the public's interests. They work for the government and serve its interests and those who have influence government. Except in rare instances, service does not equate defence of a country nor does it mean fighting on behalf of a people and in their interests.

 

You make it sound like a normal job. Going to war for a living takes a certain type of person and even if they are getting payed... So? They are being payed to do extraordinary work. I don't want them to be where they currently are, however we have to remember that there primary role is to act in our defense. So surely by risking there life a perk could be an advantage with immigration services?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You make it sound like a normal job. Going to war for a living takes a certain type of person and even if they are getting payed... So? They are being payed to do extraordinary work. I don't want them to be where they currently are, however we have to remember that there primary role is to act in our defense. So surely by risking there life a perk could be an advantage with immigration services?

 

It is no normal job. It does take certain qualities, I'd assume. And it is different from other forms of work.

 

But their primary role is NOT to act in our defence, as I have said, their primary role is to carry out the demands of government in meeting the interests of politicians, business, and others with power and influence in a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had to draw a line in the sand and they have.

 

It's called government. Something those on Mannin are not used to....

It's where you draw the line that counts...I think we are more than used to lines be drawn by the Island Government - like the UK one they seem adept at drawing them in the wrong place! Its called misgovernment.....

How is the UK stance on this issue misgovernment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the UK stance on this issue misgovernment?

Well for a start....evidently a majority of Members of Parliament felt it to be just that...

Some 27 Labour rebels joined opposition parties to vote for a Liberal Democrat motion to give all Gurkhas who have served in the British armed forces equal rights of residence. Although the motion was not binding on the Government, the 21-vote defeat came as a humiliating reverse for Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a dramatic boost for the troops from the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal, who have pursued their demand for the right to settle through the courts over several years.

More generally when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair he was talking about honest government and dropping of 'spin'.

 

Sadly IMO one actually has to watch every announcement he makes very carefully for the 'fine print' - he is a master of headline politics, which, when the full details are published (usually some time later), are in reality often mean minded and parsimonious. Even the scrappage scheme turns out to be not a GBP 2,000 from the UK Government as they trumpeted but as GBP 1,000 from the UKG and GBP 1,000 from manufacturers - and will be 'until funds run out' so advice to anyone in the UK thinking about scrappage is now 'get in quick whilst UK Government funds last'. The same thing applied to his heralded loft insulation scheme - in reality much political noise but very limited funds were made available. And in the case of the Ghurkas he introduced a scheme that would make sure very few would be eligible - whilst making a lot of noise that he was responding to the court decision that the Government were behaving illegally.

 

Whilst I am not a great supporter of his predecessor at least Tony Blair was much more of a people person, had a sense of humour and ability to be self-deprecating and is a very capable communicator. IMO Gordon Brown is in personality terms a true successor to Margaret Thatcher - but probably more introverted. All those comments about him being 'dour' when he first became PM seem, alas, to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they are not citizens of a Commonwealth country. Nepal has never been in the Empire or the Commonwealth. They were not being discriminated against. They are completely foreign people who accepted money to kill enemies of Britain.

 

True but even if paid they fought for our country at great personal sacrifice. When you consider the tidal wave of human detritus that the UK accepts daily either legally or illegally you have to arrive at the decision that the Gurkhas have been abysmally treated. If you're a Somalian rapist or cop killer it seems to be that there is nothing that the legal system can do to kick you out even if you commit further crimes on British soil - but a pile of old gentlemen who have fought for British Army then that's a totally different matter.

 

Our value system is completely warped I'm afraid.

 

Gordon Brown should hang his head in shame.

 

 

Great hit the nail on the head !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not a great supporter of his predecessor at least Tony Blair was much more of a people person, had a sense of humour and ability to be self-deprecating and is a very capable communicator. IMO Gordon Brown is in personality terms a true successor to Margaret Thatcher - but probably more introverted. All those comments about him being 'dour' when he first became PM seem, alas, to be true.

 

 

Do you think it is important to have charismatic rulers then? I only ask because I have always tended to see Blair's humour and his outward signs of being a people person as a product of spin and tailor-making of a popular bullshitter. I just always thoughts Blair was a smug git, he just seemed fake. But yeah, Gordon Brown is certainly not charismatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the UK stance on this issue misgovernment?

Well for a start....evidently a majority of Members of Parliament felt it to be just that...

This isn't "misgovernment" at all. It's actually "government bau". This is why we have a HOC with MP's voting on issues. Simple as.

 

Brown drew a line in the sand. The HOC moved it, probably with an eye on an upcoming election, but this is exactly how a democracy should work. Unlike other jurisdictions one could mention where those making the decisions would appear to be completely unaccountable for their actions...

 

Personally as the numbers are so small I think it's a storm in a teacup, despite what some soft-porn actress would have us believe. Of course, the simple fact that when they signed on the t&c's were very well known to them will be quietly ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole debate is getting me confused. Just read in the Manchester Evening News that the a government minister was opposed to this because it would mean that other former soldiers of Commonwealth nations could get the same rights to automatic entry. But I already thought this was the case, and that because the Ghurkas are Nepalese they are not given this privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not a great supporter of his predecessor at least Tony Blair was much more of a people person, had a sense of humour and ability to be self-deprecating and is a very capable communicator. IMO Gordon Brown is in personality terms a true successor to Margaret Thatcher - but probably more introverted. All those comments about him being 'dour' when he first became PM seem, alas, to be true.

Do you think it is important to have charismatic rulers then? I only ask because I have always tended to see Blair's humour and his outward signs of being a people person as a product of spin and tailor-making of a popular bullshitter. I just always thoughts Blair was a smug git, he just seemed fake. But yeah, Gordon Brown is certainly not charismatic.

Charisma is not necessary but some people skills are. IMO Brown lacks these in a big way. His inability to handle criticism is a dangerous trait in a role that needs to be able to seek and encourage alternative ideas. Still I don't think he will be UK PM for much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so does this now mean that ALL Commonwealth citizens that have fought in the British forces are now allowed automatic entry, or because of public campaigning the UK now discriminates just for these Ghurkas?

I would hope they can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...