October 15, 200817 yr I think the Gurkhas main failing is that they don't whinge enough. Perhaps if they weren't so stoic, brave, and battle-hardened; they might have a chance of British citizenship. They should try to disguise themselves as a collective of repressed Nicaraguan coffee farmers, gay Muslim amputees, lesbian Marxists or something similarly ethnicky-trendy-worthy that appeals to local UK councils. Then the UK would be throwing passports and council houses at them. As a symbol of Empire and war, they've got no chance.
October 15, 200817 yr Author Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss
October 17, 200817 yr Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Indeed we do
October 17, 200817 yr Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Speak for yourself, Moss. I don't think they should.
October 17, 200817 yr Author Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Speak for yourself, Moss. I don't think they should. Although I disagree with you Jangles on this point, I was trying to be humorous regarding Suigings post and not commenting on the thread in general, however looking back, although I understand it, I don't see how anybody else could. Good Luck Moss
October 17, 200817 yr Author Gurkha Motivational. Ab Fab 'Art, where did you find it, or have you photo shopped it? And can I use it in the future? It might come in handy for the muscle bound, testosterone filled special forces wannabees in General every now and again. Good Luck Moss
October 18, 200817 yr Gurkha Motivational. Ab Fab 'Art, where did you find it, or have you photo shopped it? And can I use it in the future? It might come in handy for the muscle bound, testosterone filled special forces wannabees in General every now and again. Good Luck Moss Was received by email. From a series of "military motivational" posters. Loads more here.
October 18, 200817 yr Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Speak for yourself, Moss. I don't think they should. I agree with MrBJ on this. While I am pleased that the Gurkhas have been offered this opportunity I do not think they should be the only ones. What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, and lest we forget the Americans who came to the aid of the Brits in at least two World Wars. My father fought with the allies from 41-45, his two brothers enlisted on the day war was declared in 1939. My two aunts were in England and elisted in the womens armed forces as Nurses on declaration of war. My grandfather lost an arm in the first world war but all of them had to line up with the other Aliens while the Germans walked straight through immigration with a wave of their passport. He was always somewhat hurt by that and resented it. CB
October 18, 200817 yr Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Speak for yourself, Moss. I don't think they should. I agree with MrBJ on this. While I am pleased that the Gurkhas have been offered this opportunity I do not think they should be the only ones. What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, and lest we forget the Americans who came to the aid of the Brits in at least two World Wars. My father fought with the allies from 41-45, his two brothers enlisted on the day war was declared in 1939. My two aunts were in England and elisted in the womens armed forces as Nurses on declaration of war. My grandfather lost an arm in the first world war but all of them had to line up with the other Aliens while the Germans walked straight through immigration with a wave of their passport. He was always somewhat hurt by that and resented it. CB One of the differences is that many of the people you mention were members of their own country's armed forces whereas the Gurkhas are part of the British Army and, in my opinion, ought to have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other UK serviceman.
October 18, 200817 yr Oh dearTeacher's going to spank you for this one. I don't think so, I think we have a consensus that they deserve to stay. Moss Speak for yourself, Moss. I don't think they should. I agree with MrBJ on this. While I am pleased that the Gurkhas have been offered this opportunity I do not think they should be the only ones. What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, and lest we forget the Americans who came to the aid of the Brits in at least two World Wars. My father fought with the allies from 41-45, his two brothers enlisted on the day war was declared in 1939. My two aunts were in England and elisted in the womens armed forces as Nurses on declaration of war. My grandfather lost an arm in the first world war but all of them had to line up with the other Aliens while the Germans walked straight through immigration with a wave of their passport. He was always somewhat hurt by that and resented it. CB One of the differences is that many of the people you mention were members of their own country's armed forces whereas the Gurkhas are part of the British Army and, in my opinion, ought to have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other UK serviceman. The Sikh, Pakistani and various other subcontinent volunteers were part of the British Army in the same way as the Nepalese Gurkhas. The members of the Gibraltar units don't get the same privileges as the Gurkhas either. CB
October 18, 200817 yr As I said those who served in the UK forces all ought to have the same conditions. As a point of pedantry Pakistanis didn't serve in either WW as Pakistan didn't exist before 1947. Similar treatment was suffered by Indian/Pakistani merchant seamen who sailed on British registered merchant ships up until (to my knowledge) 1985. They were paid at the same rate as British seamen which caused their respective governments problems as it put them on a very high pay rate compared to their countrymen. The Indian government solved the problem by having them make compulsory contributions (which constituted a large proportion of their wages) to the 'All India Seamen's Pension Fund'. I never met any Indian crew who knew anyone who got a pension from it.
October 18, 200817 yr Author What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, and lest we forget the Americans who came to the aid of the Brits in at least two World Wars. My father fought with the allies from 41-45, his two brothers enlisted on the day war was declared in 1939. My two aunts were in England and elisted in the womens armed forces as Nurses on declaration of war. My grandfather lost an arm in the first world war but all of them had to line up with the other Aliens while the Germans walked straight through immigration with a wave of their passport. He was always somewhat hurt by that and resented it.CB What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, My Immigration law is not entirely up-to-scratch so I am open to a counter argument here, but I believe up until the Commonwealth Act of the early sixties, members of the commonwealth had unrestricted movement and permission to stay within the UK, something not afforded to the Gurkha's. I would be first to acknowledge the courage of the Americans, particularly in WW11, lest we forget the Americans but lets not also forget they did not come in to 'save', the Brits, as a nation they were staunchly isolationist, but joined in because of their own vested interests.Moss
October 18, 200817 yr Author As a point of pedantry Pakistanis didn't serve in either WW as Pakistan didn't exist before 1947. Pedantry at a level that can only be granted the 'Order of Finn's Hair-splitting' such Gongs have only been issued in Bedlam to my good self and Thad. Welcome to the club Moss
October 18, 200817 yr What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, My Immigration law is not entirely up-to-scratch so I am open to a counter argument here, but I believe up until the Commonwealth Act of the early sixties, members of the commonwealth had unrestricted movement and permission to stay within the UK, something not afforded to the Gurkha's. Members of the Commonwealth were allowed to visit but not emigrate until the 60s and the repeal of the Commonwealth Act which was primarily designed to prevent a mass immigration of "less desirable" excolonials such as from Pakistan, India, and the Caribbean nations I would be first to acknowledge the courage of the Americans, particularly in WW11, lest we forget the Americans but lets not also forget they did not come in to 'save', the Brits, as a nation they were staunchly isolationist, but joined in because of their own vested interests. All nations have vested interests, England certainly did in both Wars. It is individuals who fight wars and nations who benefit from them. CB
October 18, 200817 yr Author What about the Sikhs, Pakistani, Indian, South African, Rhodesian, Australian, New Zealander, Fijian, Samoan, Canadian, My Immigration law is not entirely up-to-scratch so I am open to a counter argument here, but I believe up until the Commonwealth Act of the early sixties, members of the commonwealth had unrestricted movement and permission to stay within the UK, something not afforded to the Gurkha's. Members of the Commonwealth were allowed to visit but not emigrate until the 60s and the repeal of the Commonwealth Act which was primarily designed to prevent a mass immigration of "less desirable" excolonials such as from Pakistan, India, and the Caribbean nations I would be first to acknowledge the courage of the Americans, particularly in WW11, lest we forget the Americans but lets not also forget they did not come in to 'save', the Brits, as a nation they were staunchly isolationist, but joined in because of their own vested interests. All nations have vested interests, England certainly did in both Wars. It is individuals who fight wars and nations who benefit from them. CB Members of the Commonwealth were allowed to visit but not emigrate until the 60s I am not sure this is correct, I believe they had unrestricted access and leave to remain, before the act. All nations have vested interests, England certainly did in both Wars. So you agree with me then, the U.S did not enter the War to 'save' the Brits but because of their own vested interests? Moss
October 18, 200817 yr Nice side swipe In days gone gone bye, I had the privilege of watching the recruitment process for the Gurkha Battalions. The young lads came down from the hills and literally bust ab gut to join the British Army. Their efforts were outstanding and were a standard that we serving in the British Forces at the time could only hope to match. However, if they failed to join the British Army, they immediately changed their allegiance to the Indian Army, gave that selection a crack, hoping for the best. Failing that the Nepalese Forces were their third option. Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Understandably in the poverty they came from..........................100%
October 18, 200817 yr Author Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss
October 18, 200817 yr Members of the Commonwealth were allowed to visit but not emigrate until the 60s I am not sure this is correct, I believe they had unrestricted access and leave to remain, before the act. I think that the Singha had kicked in here - it should have been written that until the 60's when the Act was changed members of the Commonwealth were allowed to stay but I don't think it gave them automatic right to British citizenship unless they could prove British parentage eg up to grandfather - Tony Greg managed to switch from being South African to being an English cricket player and eventually captain under those rules until he decided to emigrate to Australia All nations have vested interests, England certainly did in both Wars. So you agree with me then, the U.S did not enter the War to 'save' the Brits but because of their own vested interests? It was certainly not patriotism towards England although to be fair quite a large number of Americans served in the Canadian Armed forces during both wars and from the beginning not just when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Until then the United States was happy to sell to the Germans as long as it was via a third party. There were many people in the USA and countries including Australia who did not want to be dragged into a "European" war. Many an descendent of a Scot or Irish convict did not feel the need to rush to England's defence. My grandfather told me that he joined because everyone else did and he didn't want to "be left out". My uncles did because their "dad had in the first war" and thought it would be fun. My dad did because his brothers and sister had. None of them had a burning ambition to protect British soverignty even if they had a stong sense of the British Empire and all it meant. They identified as being Australian, my older brother volunteered for Vietnam despite not even knowing where the country was - he did three tours in the Infantry. I volunteered in 1975 in one of the first intakes after Vietnam because it looked like it would start up in Southern Africa. I spent then next fifteen years mainly assisting the USMC in their actions "protecting the American Way". I never regret one of those days I spent in uniform. The Gurkha soldiers are very good and were taken care of by the British Army but that does not give them special rights to enter as British citizens. I wonder what would have happened if Joanne Lumley's dad served with the Sikh horsemen - would they and not the Gurkha with whome he actually served now be in the same position and the Gurkha sitting in a hut back home in Nepal. CB
October 18, 200817 yr Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss When put into to context with the rest of Suiging's post. I think he is saying that Loyalty to the Crown, wasn't the main driver for them joining. The salary was first and with that, came the loyalty I doubt very much if all the Nepalise who didn't make the cut and had to join another army, were loyal to the crown.
October 18, 200817 yr Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss When put into to context with the rest of Suiging's post. I think he is saying that Loyalty to the Crown, wasn't the main driver for them joining. The salary was first and with that, came the loyalty Isn't that true of most people who join the Forces? Did you join the Navy because you wanted to protect Liz or because it seemed to be a good job?
October 18, 200817 yr Author Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss When put into to context with the rest of Suiging's post. I think he is saying that Loyalty to the Crown, wasn't the main driver for them joining. The salary was first and with that, came the loyalty I doubt very much if all the Nepalise who didn't make the cut and had to join another army, were loyal to the crown. The salary was first and with that, came the loyalty To put you on the spot Jangles, if you had been refused the Queens Shilling, to feed your family would you have taken the Presidents Punt, you qualify for both and if so, if push came to shove, would you have been less loyal in a fire fight to your colleagues or country? Moss
October 18, 200817 yr Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss When put into to context with the rest of Suiging's post. I think he is saying that Loyalty to the Crown, wasn't the main driver for them joining. The salary was first and with that, came the loyalty Isn't that true of most people who join the Forces? Did you join the Navy because you wanted to protect Liz or because it seemed to be a good job? I never said i was loyal. I just wanted to bonk as many girls as i could, at that age. The money wasn't bad either
October 18, 200817 yr To put you on the spot Jangles, if you had been refused the Queens Shilling, to feed your family would you have taken the Presidents Punt, you qualify for both and if so, if push came to shove, would you have been less loyal in a fire fight to your colleagues or country?Moss Colleagues, firstly Moss. Always have been. Then again, military training does that. However, as mentioned above, if a busty blonde was also an option. Colleagues and country would have been dropped a level in the pecking order
October 18, 200817 yr Author - it should have been written that until the 60's when the Act was changed members of the Commonwealth were allowed to stay Thank Heavens for that, I thought I was going mad So no change there then!! unless they could prove British parentage eg up to grandfather Again, I am open to contradiction but I believe this legislation was only invoked in 1972, and again the Gurkha's had no option. The Gurkha soldiers are very good and were taken care of by the British Army but that does not give them special rights to enter as British citizens I somewhat disagree that they have been taken care of, in fact evidence shows that they are paid below the rate of the soldier they fight alongside and their pension is nowhere in comparison, so where is the evidence they have been taken care of? I also disagree with the statement of 'no special rights to enter Britain', OK I can reluctantly agree with the British Citizen category, but they have special links to the UK, if not fighting side by side with your regular Tommy, staunchly loyal, fighting to the last bullet or grenade and as some might say for what, a pay check at every month, give me a break!! I wonder what would have happened if Joanne Lumley's dad served with the Sikh horsemen - would they and not the Gurkha with whome he actually served now be in the same position and the Gurkha sitting in a hut back home in Nepal. If he had served with the Sikh Horsemen, I guess he would be fighting for their rights too, but they would have had the right to enter the UK and stay at liberty, the Gurkha's cannot. Moss
October 19, 200817 yr Loyalty to the Crown........................Errr no. Just so I fully understand the above statement, the Gurkha's were not loyal to the Crown? Moss Moss I think you are well aware that the snip was taken out of context. I do think their loyalty to their fellow soldiers is unquestioned, as is their fierce pride in themselves as a fighting Unit, however they are not alone in their treatment by the British Government. Many thousands of Chinese fought for the Crown in both world wars. Without them naval vessels would have not been able to function ( support arms as simple as cooking and laundry essential ) and casualties would have perished for want of bearers in all fields of battle. They received nothing. In Africa, particularly in the First War incredible feats of arms were undertaken by native levies, where was there pension ? As actual members of the British Empire, Crow Boys Indian's and the many brave Africans should surely be ahead in the line before mercenaries from an Independent state.
Create an account or sign in to comment