Ghurkas

raveydavey · Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: Ghurkas

Brave enough to fight and die for Britain, but apparently not fit to live here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8014265.stm

Campaigners have reacted with anger to new rules on the eligibility of Gurkha veterans to live in the UK.

The Home Office said that new rules would allow about 4,300 more to settle, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign said it would be just 100.

Actress Joanna Lumley, a campaigner for the Gurkhas, said the announcement made her "ashamed of our administration".

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas denied he had betrayed the Gurkhas, adding: "This improves the situation."

He said: "It has never been the case that all Gurkhas pre-1997 were to be allowed to stay in the country. With their dependents you could be looking at 100,000 people.

"It's simply not true that we have betrayed the Gurkhas. When people read the guidelines they will see the sense of them."

In September 2008, the High Court ruled that immigration rules denying Gurkhas who retired before 1997 - about 36,000 - an automatic right to stay in the UK were unlawful.

Peter Carroll, from the Gurkha Justice Campaign, said the fight to allow them to stay in this country would continue with renewed vigour.

He added: "The one group of people that has never let this country down has been let down today in a manner which is truly appalling."

David Enwright, a solicitor representing the Gurkhas, said: "This government, Mr Woolas, should hang their head in shame so low that their forehead should touch their boots.

"This is a disgrace and a betrayal of our armed forces and our veterans."

Dhan Gurung, the first ex-Gurkha to be elected as a councillor in the UK, said the announcement was "insulting to loyal Gurkhas".

He added: "If they want Gurkha soldiers, they should treat them equally."

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted that the new rules were fair.

Mr Brown added: "There used to be a bar at 1997, but we've moved that right back to make it possible for people to live in this country."

Gurkhas have been part of the Army for almost 200 years and are hand-picked from a fiercely-contested recruitment contest in Nepal to win the right to join.

They have seen combat all over the world, with 200,000 having fought in the two world wars and 45,000 believed to have lost their lives fighting for Britain.

The regiment moved its main base from Hong Kong to the UK in 1997 and the government had argued that Gurkhas discharged before that date were unlikely to have strong residential ties with the UK.

That meant those who wanted to settle in the UK had to apply for British residency and could be refused and deported.

Mr Woolas outlined the eligibility criteria in a written ministerial statement. Gurkhas and their families will be allowed to stay in the UK if they meet at least one of five requirements.

These are three years of continuous residence in the UK, close family in the country, 20 or more years of service, a level one to three bravery award, and a serious medical condition caused or aggravated by service.

Alternatively, veterans can gain residency if they meet at least two of an additional set of three criteria.

These are having been awarded an MoD disability pension but no longer having a chronic condition, having been mentioned in dispatches, and 10 years' service or a campaign medal.

But Ms Lumley, whose father served with the Gurkhas, said most Gurkhas would not have been allowed to stay in the UK for three years or have gained a bravery award.

She added that only officers would have achieved 20 years of service, and that it would be near-impossible for troops who served in the 1950s and 1960s to prove that their medical conditions were caused by their time in the forces.

"They've given five bullet points that virtually cannot be met by the ordinary Gurkha soldier," she said.

"It is so obvious that the treatment of the Gurkhas has been a huge injustice," she said.

"To treat them like this is despicable."
The Home Office said that as a result of the decision, a total of 4,300 Ghurkas who served prior to 1997 would be eligible for residency.

A spokesman added there were currently 1,300 applications outstanding, 300 of which would now be granted.

In September, Mr Justice Blake ruled that instructions given by the Home Office to immigration officials were unlawful and needed urgent revision.

He said the Gurkhas' long service, conspicuous acts of bravery and loyalty to the Crown all pointed to a "moral debt of honour" and gratitude felt by British people.

The government promised to revise its guidance, but in March 2009, the Gurkhas returned to the High Court to try and enforce the ruling.

Turn up illegally and you've a great chance of being allowed to stay here indefinately and send for your family. Serve loyally in our Army risking life and limb and you're not wanted. This sums up everything that is wrong with this government and it's so called immigration policy.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

30 Mill · Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject:

The motherland has previous form with respect to how she has treated her Allies in the past. Normally i dont get too fussed but today being Anzac Day, and myself an ex soldier, it lit my fuse

Wish there was a way to help here!!!

What really p1sses me off is the fact that you can work and die for England and get F All support, but if you'd like to blow the whole feckin country up, then walk this way Sir, pick up an immigration form and please pass GO as we will give you shit loads of money in support

KNOBJOCKEYS!!! Evil or Very Mad

_________________
Remember children, the bigger your post count, the bigger your penis will be

NE1 · Neither Shallow Nor Sexist Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 1924

appalling! we have let them down big style. I am embarressed to call myself an English person Evil or Very Mad

wewantourdarbyback · Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject:

Ahem, they are allowed to settle here if they left since 97. Most of those who left beforehand have been allowed to settle as well as they meet a set of conditions so don't go jumping on the 'it's all a disgrace' bandwagon.

Those who haven't met the conditions should be allowed to settle, there shouldn't be conditions set on Gurkha's and they should all be allowed in. The papers are as usual blowing it out of all proportion. It is a disgrace that some are not allowed to settle but to make it seem this big a disgrace is to try and whip up fury.

_________________

ArmleyWhite · Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject:

raveydavey · Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/200904...wn-loses-gurkha-vote-dba1618.html

A bid to scrap new settlement criteria, brought by the Liberal Democrats, was surprisingly backed by MPs by 267 votes to 246.

Although the vote is not legally-binding, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the Government would now have to change its policy and Mr Cameron called on ministers to come forward immediately with new proposals.

Mr Clegg said: "This is the kind of thing that I think people want this country to do, that we pay back our obligations and our debt of gratitude to generations of Gurkhas who laid down their lives for this country."

Actress Joanna Lumley said she and the Gurkhas involved in the campaign were "elated".

She added: "When it came through we saw it on the screen and I can't tell you the sense of elation, the sense of pride - pride in our country, pride in the democratic system and pride in our Parliament."

Earlier, during PMQs, the Prime Minister suggested Britain could not afford the £1.4 billion cost of an open door policy for Gurkhas but promised to keep the issue under review.

It comes after the Home Office announced last week that, despite appeals from Gurkhas and their supporters, they would not allow veterans discharged before 1997 the automatic right to settle in the UK.

Instead, strict criteria would be applied to settlement claims such as length of service, bravery medals and service-related medical conditions.

But during the cross-party debate in the Commons, some Labour MPs went against Government policy and joined protests over what campaigners call a "betrayal" of the former soldiers.

Labour's Keith Vaz (Leicester E), Home Affairs Select Committee chairman, said he had been in the House too long when a Labour Government was trying to restrict numbers coming into the UK and the Tories were doing the opposite.

Mr Vaz, who has signed Mr Howarth's amendment, said: "I think it is wrong to change an important aspect of policy by an exchange of letters between the Home Secretary and backbenchers, when the Government has had a considerable amount of time to deal with this matter and to fashion a policy that is both fair and just."

Labour's Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) said Gurkha soldiers were of "enormous benefit" to the UK.

He told ministers it was inevitable the campaign to win better settlement rights would ultimately succeed.

Liberal Democrat Party spokesman Chris Huhne claimed the Government had shown a "cavalier attitude" to costs and made a "wild guess" at the number of soldiers wanting to live here.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

NE1 · Neither Shallow Nor Sexist Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 1924

justice prevails

	everythingleeds.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Current Affairs	All times are GMT - 1 Hours
Page 1 of 1