The Treatment of Ghurkas by the UK Govement.

**justicar5** · April 24, 2009, 11:39 AM

It's a disgrace the way that Ghurkas who fought for this country are being treated, they served in the army, they should be allowed to settle, end of discussion, but not according to the ruling today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6160649.ece

it makes me ashamed that we treat them this way.

**Каие** · April 24, 2009, 11:44 AM

Totally disgusting. This is why I find it hard to believe we are really doing what we are in Afghanistan for the people there. This government can't even look after it's own SOLDIERS, be they Ghurka or not.

I'm just surprised that only the Lib Dems are bringing this case up. It seems like prime Tory territory.

**justicar5** · April 24, 2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

Totally disgusting. This is why I find it hard to believe we are really doing what we are in Afghanistan for the people there. This government can't even look after it's own SOLDIERS, be they Ghurka or not.

I'm just surprised that only the Lib Dems are bringing this case up. It seems like prime Tory territory.

I think the Tories don't want to touch it, as it can fairly be said that they did nothing about while in power. The conditions for serving Ghurkas are (and have been since 1997) 5 years of military sevice for settlement rights for them and their families. Which imho should be 4 like commonwealth soilders have, but is certainly better than the 'never' that the Tories had maintained (and to be fair no previous labour goverment had touched either).

**Каие** · April 24, 2009, 12:24 PM

The Ghurkas were still based in Hong Kong under the Tories, but in 1997 they switched.

**justicar5** · April 24, 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

The Ghurkas were still based in Hong Kong under the Tories, but in 1997 they switched.

Ahh ok, wondered why the change. The shed blood for us, they are citizens, more so than council estate chavs imo.

**Helm** · April 24, 2009, 01:48 PM

They probably wouldn't have that problem if they were white.

**Ishoss** · April 24, 2009, 03:05 PM

Can Ghurkas legally immigrate to Great Britain like regular Nepalese?

**Nikos** · April 24, 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by justicar5

It's a disgrace the way that Ghurkas who fought for this country are being treated, they served in the army, they should be allowed to settle, end of discussion, but not according to the ruling today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6160649.ece

it makes me ashamed that we treat them this way.

I agree, It is disgusting.

**Garrigan** · April 24, 2009, 03:55 PM

Can Ghurkas legally immigrate to Great Britain like regular Nepalese?

There's no guarantee they'd actually get in.

Of course they could hang on the bottom of a truck coming in on the channel tunnel. A true heroes entrance.

**Edward lV** · April 24, 2009, 05:09 PM

This is bull. Pretty much Anyone can get in, why the hell cant they? Is it some kind of traditional thing or something?

**Garrigan** · April 24, 2009, 05:25 PM

This is bull. Pretty much Anyone can get in, why the hell cant they? Is it some kind of traditional thing or something?

What? "Come die for the British Army, the reward? You wont be allowed anywhere the

near Britain"

No it isnt. And it isnt so easy to get in, or they'd just do it anyway. Its easy for EU members.

**Bovril** · April 24, 2009, 08:20 PM

I see the fact the British army employs foreign mercenaries as more distastefull than the fact the British government doesn't give them British citizenship after they are done.
I don't regard anyone who decides to kill others on government orders (a foreign government for that matter) as automatically becoming a hero, especially if you get paid more for doing so than doctors or most other professionals in your country (as is the case with Ghurkas).

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · April 24, 2009, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bovril

I see the fact the British army employs foreign mercenaries as more distastefull than the fact the British government doesn't give them British citizenship after they are done.
I don't regard anyone who decides to kill others on government orders (a foreign government for that matter) as automatically becoming a hero, especially if you get paid more for doing so than doctors or most other professionals in your country (as is the case with Ghurkas).

You clearly have no knowledge of the status of the Gurkas in the British Army.

**Yorkshireman** · April 24, 2009, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bovril

especially if you get paid more for doing so than doctors or most other professionals in your country (as is the case with Ghurkas).

More than doctors?

All recruits start on the same wage regardless of their age. So based on a 30-day month, as a recruit you can expect approximately £780 paid into your bank account. This is after tax, National Insurance, food and accommodation charges have been stopped from your pay.

Private soldiers earn about £16,000 per annum before stoppages.

http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...sasoldier.aspx

Junior doctors earn a basic salary and will usually be paid a supplement. This supplement is based on the extra hours worked above a 40 hour standard working week and the intensity of the work.

The most common banding supplement is 50% of basic salary. In the most junior hospital doctor post (foundation year 1) a doctor on a 50% supplement would earn £33,285. This increases in the second year (foundation year 2) to £41,285. A doctor in specialist training on a 50% supplement could earn from £44,117 to £69,369.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details...lt.aspx?Id=553

Junior doctors from £33,000 - £69,000.

Slight difference.

**Farnan** · April 24, 2009, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Yorkshireman

More than doctors?

Private soldiers earn about £16,000 per annum before stoppages.

http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...sasoldier.aspx

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details...lt.aspx?Id=553

Junior doctors from £33,000 - £69,000.

Slight difference.

British soldiers have to pay for their food, health care, and housing?

That sucks. In the US soldiers food, health care and housing is either included or they are paid a stipend cover that expense (depending if they live on or off base).

**Yorkshireman** · April 24, 2009, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Farnan

British soldiers have to pay for their food, health care, and housing?

That sucks. In the US soldiers food, health care and housing is either included or they are paid a stipend cover that expense (depending if they live on or off base).

They take a set amount out each month for food + accom. (not medical care!) If you live off base you don't pay, or when your abroad, on exercise or operations. When you've been away, you always get a bumper wage.

Yeah it is a bit

, you'd think they'd feed and house you for free after you've signed up.

**Farnan** · April 24, 2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Yorkshireman

They take a set amount out each month for food + accom. (not medical care!) If you live off base you don't pay, or when your abroad, on exercise or operations. When you've been away, you always get a bumper wage.

Yeah it is a bit

, you'd think they'd feed and house you for free after you've signed up.

I just thought something ironic...

The US Military is probably one of the most socialist places in the world.

But back on topic, the Ghurkas definitely deserve to be treated with great respect. Hell if you're not willing to respect them with being able to live in the UK and get British citizenship you don't deserve them. As such we (the US) will have to take them off your hands.

**Xen** · April 30, 2009, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Farnan

British soldiers have to pay for their food, health care, and housing?

That sucks. In the US soldiers food, health care and housing is either included or they are paid a stipend cover that expense (depending if they live on or off base).

It's covered by our pay, i'm not sure about US soldiers but I would guess they'd get payed more if the food an accomodation wasnt given to them.

Personally met and trained with some of these lads, lethal guys the way the government are treating them pissing me off, another reason to vote Conservative.

**Bovril** · April 29, 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Garrigan

They are hardly mercenries. They form a regiment in the British Army, and their officers are British. Doesnt sound like a mercenry outift to me.

A common definition of mercenary is a professional soldier serving in a foreign army. That exactly fits what Ghurkas are.

Originally Posted by Yorkshireman

More than doctors?

More than doctors in Nepal, which is what I said, not doctors in the UK. The point is that Ghurkas are extremely well paid by Nepalese standards. There's no reason to think that they generally join the British army out of any love of Britain.

**Yorkshireman** · April 29, 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bovril

There's no reason to think that they generally join the British army out of any love of Britain.

They're loyal to their regiment and the British army, I know thats a strange, outdated concept for many people in todays world to understand.

wish you country could take them in tbh, I wish they got the honour they earned any which way

They've no wish to go to the US, they'll stay or be allowed to enter Britain the country they served. The government already lost a vote on the matter today.

Gordon Brown's government has suffered a shock defeat in the Commons on its policy of restricting the right of many former Gurkhas to settle in the UK.
MPs voted by 267 to 246 for a Lib Dem motion offering all Gurkhas equal right of residence, with the Tories and 27 Labour rebels backing it.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg called the government's position "shameful".
Immigration minister Phil Woolas told MPs new proposals would be published before Parliament's summer recess.

In a statement, he said: "This government respects the will of the House of Commons."
He added that all outstanding applications for UK residence by Gurkhas would be dealt with by the end of May.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm