Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
roger
yep an interesting government bash
of course you would like it
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Roger
As much as I support the Ghurkas and I do it is as both Phil and I have previously stated a difficult issue.
When they took the Queens shilling there was no promise of citizenship or UK residency this has been dreamed up by z list celebs who have nothing better to do.Yes they deserve equal pay and pension rights as British soldiers but handing over residency and back dating it I think is a step too far.
No one has even considered the effect of the economy of Nepal and the even greater effect on the villages from where these soldiers were recruited.Normally throughout their service the soldiers remit money home to their wives and parents and support their extended families.The local shops thrive as money comes into the region.The second aim is then to build themselves and their family a brick house for their retirement.So beautiful large house are built over a period of years again this help supports the local industries and craftsman. Hard earned sterling pounds are converted to US dollars and then exchanged for the local currency.Nepal needs these dollars to help with its balance of payments.
All that will cease with this ruling and a 400 year tradition will die and fade away.The money will be kept in the UK.The wives will join their husbands here and therefore the retirement homes will not be built .The stonemasons carpenters etc will lose their jobs small shops will close as the money no longer gets sent home and a whole way of life will cease.
Sometimes we act without thinking what the repercussions will be.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Marek, I take your point about the benefit that Nepal gains from the ghurkas and the possible damage to their economy. That though assumes that every Ghuka will want to live here and that is certainly not necessarily the case. Yes those that do will contribute less to the nepal economy (they may still send some cash back to families) but those that remain there are better rewarded than before relative to the Nepal economy and as such should offset some of the losses.
Should we though place such arguments ahead of our debt to such loyal and couragous servants of HMQ. Maybe Nepal's economy is being held back by excessive dependance upon the Ghurkas in the way many believe (I thing rightly) that Africa is being held back by aid.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
BarryW
Firstly I agree about Africa being held back by continous aid.
On the Ghurkas I wanted to broaden the debate slightly and I have seen first hand the benefits a whole village not just a family can reap by having one of their 'own' living and working overseas and then remitting money home.
It still happens in the Philippines where 10% of its GNP is made up by Overseas Filipino Workers(OFW's) remitting hard earned dollars from working in the Middle East Europe or North America. A monthly remittance of say £250 per month is the equivalent to 3 months top rearners salary in some countries and in Bangladesh (where I worked) equivalent to a years pay.They have a special name for Bengalis that live here and send money home ..Londoni..."look at that Londoni house" they tell you when pointing to a beautiful detached residence built with overseas cash.
My main concern is that we must ensure that we are not doing more harm than good with this ruling.Time will tell in which direction the Nepalese UK residents will take.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Fair comment. It is also true to say that if the Nepalise Government sees no future benefit from the Brigade of Ghurkas our recruitment could be at risk. I would hope that these issues are being addressed. By the way - the only ones in question here are those who served before 1997, when their main base in Hong Kong was closed and the brigade moved to the UK. Those serving since 1997 have this right already.
The issue of what happens to Nepal is one that is relevant whether or not the rights are extended to pre 1997 Ghurkas.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
McBroon is an absolute disgrace to this country. An utterly useless, self-serving moral pygmy. In the name of God - go. Now!
Victory to the Gurkhas!
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
Totally with you there, Roger.
Jeff Randall's piece in the Telegraph exposes McBroon and his cronies for the treacherous, greedy, morally-repugnant shower they are.
Have a good weekend,
Andy
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thanks Andy - similar thumbs up.
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Andy
Its no good just having a cheap swipe at the govt.I was attempting to make some valid points about the knock on effect this ruling could have on the Ghurka community back in Nepal.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think that some of the interesting points raised, particularly by phil and marek, have been swamped by the emotive stuff.
when i read our mp's column this morning in the eggs press, his reason for the way he voted was very different to the way i and many others assumed.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
Rightly or wrongly, the mass granting of ex-Ghurkas citizenship would potentially flood the UK with tens of thousands of applications of Leave to Remain from their dependants, i.e. wives, children and other family members back in Nepal. If then settled in the UK, would these dependants be capable of supporting themselves or would they become reliant on state funds? No matter the noble service of the individual Ghurkas, can we really vouch for those who will tag along on the coat-tails of their new status in the UK? For every settled Ghurka, we could be looking at half a dozen settlement applications from their family members.
I don't want to make an emotive judgement call on this, but I think these are factors worth considering. I almost feel nervous writing the above given the saintly status accorded to the Ghurkas by so many people. Economic betterment is the prime motive force behind most people, and not even the Ghurkhas are above this, even though they have a very deserving cause and huge public support.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
As I previously stated sooner rather than later the gate has to shut and now it's the Iraqi interpreters turn to bang at the gates of the UK. Where is Joanna Lumley now?
The Government has been accused of being "mean-spirited" after deciding to close a resettlement programme for Iraqi workers who helped the British occupying forces.
Foreign Office officials confirmed the Gateway Protection Programme - set up in 2007 to help 600 Iraqis potentially at risk of reprisals to start new lives - is to close on May 19.
The Foreign Office said the Gateway scheme was never meant to be open on an indefinite basis.
It gives former interpreters, cleaners and other local staff the option of relocating to Britain, receiving a cash sum to stay in Iraq or resettle elsewhere.
People are only eligible to apply if they worked for a year from January 1 2005.
The criteria have been criticised as too restrictive, with reports also claiming that many interpreters were forced to quit earlier than the cut-off date because of intimidation.
Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone told The Times of the scheme's closure: "There are going to be people still in danger. The enemy is still out there. It is mean-spirited."
Conservative MP David Lidington added: "I cannot see why they are in such a rush. If the numbers (of outstanding applicants) are small then what is the harm in keeping it open? And if the numbers are large then it is being wound up prematurely. Britain has a duty to help anyone who is in danger because they worked for our Armed Forces. We have been concerned for a long time that the criteria for the scheme has been drawn strictly and inflexibly."
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "When the scheme was announced the commitment was to resettle up to 600 of the locally employed staff and their dependants. It was never intended that the Gateway option was on an indefinite basis.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)