Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
Without wanting to start some of you folks into military nostalgia which I know FE isn't keen on I would just like to make a comment about, in my opinion, the disgraceful treatment of the Gurkha regiment by HM government. These guys have been serving the British Empire for over 200 years with very little reward at the end of their service. I appreciate that the pensions they were given to live on when returning to Nepal was very good relatively speaking and, probably, most of them were content with that. However, for the government to say that those that wish to have no right to live here is disgraceful, particularly in the light of the apparent ease in which other entrants, legally or illegally, to the U.K.receive housing, benefits and a variety of other handouts. I trust that following the well-mannered and peaceful 'demonstration' carried out by these extremely proud and brave members of our armed services the government will see fit to change their mind. Unfortunately I doubt it very much.
We also have a situation where service personnel who prior to 1975, served for less than the 22 years service required for a pension, got nothing. after that date service people doing just a few years are entitled to a pension based on length of service. So those who did say 21 years or 17 years prior to 1975 get nothing while those who did say 3 years, after that date get a pension.. This is a disgrace too. I believe there is a petition on the go about this injustice.
I have great respect for the Gurkha regiments(old and new), but what some people may not realise is that some ex-Gurkha soldiers did not return home, but already live and work in this country, doing various jobs from owning and working in restaurants, lorry driving, security and many other tasks.
it's a fact that the UK government, like others, abuse those who are prepared to help them most.
At the same time, it is extremely patronising to suggest those people, who joined up, were not aware of the limitations.
What reason has been given for the change in expectations?
There is no sense or reason on how the government decides on those that can stay & those that must go.
It's not just the Gurkha's that all past goverments of this country have treated badly, the late Spike Milligan despite serving in the British Army during WWII had to apply for an Irish passport, the reason being he was born in India...
I now see the Government have further compounded this disgrace by refusing entry to a Ghurka soldier, wounded in the Falkland conflict, I beleive, for medical treatment.
"At the same time, it is extremely patronising to suggest those people, who joined up, were not aware of the limitations."
No it's not. Yes, I'm sure that the majority of soldiers, on joining, were well aware of their future on retirement. However, it wasn't the Ghurkas who chose to cede Hong Kong back to the Chinese in 1997, moving their base back to the U.K. and thus giving them the right to remain here if they so wished. All members of the regiment, past and present, should be given that right.
Even the Romans were more civilised, they allowed foreign nationals who served in their army 20 years full citizenship, which gave them the same privileges as a Roman citizen.
csqwared. Hong Kong was only on lease to the British. So we had no alternative but to hand it back to its rightful owners.
I also served with the Ghurkas and think they are entitled to full British citizenship.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.