Gurkha Veterans Not Allowed into UK...

[Big Orange]

Telegraph

Gurkhas not able to settle in Britain, despite court victory
Tens of thousands of Gurkhas will be refused the right to settle in Britain despite a landmark court ruling, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Only certain categories of veterans, including the bravest or seriously injured, will be allowed to come and stay after the Home Office ruled out a blanket policy, amid fears it would lead to up to 100,000 veterans and their dependants wanting to come.

The move will infuriate the Gurkhas and supporters, including actress Joanna Lumley, who thought they had won a long fought battle last year.

Immigration minister Phil Woolas will respond to a High Court decision which concluded that rules which stopped Gurkhas who served before July 1997 from settling in Britain were illegal.

Campaigners celebrated the ruling last October as a "victory for fairness" and had hoped it meant up to 40,000 Gurkhas who had served before the cut off date would now be allowed to live here.

Currently only those who retired after July 1997, when the Gurkha base was moved from Hong Kong to England, could automatically stay in Britain.

But the Home Office will insist the judge did not say the principle of the cut-off date was unlawful, only the criteria surrounding those who could come.

It will publish revised criteria but it will stop well short of allowing all pre-1997 veterans from settling, Whitehall sources disclosed.

Instead the new policy will be "generous" to those who were honoured for bravery or valour, require medical care due to injuries suffered during service and those who served a lengthy period, which will be higher than the four year requirement currently in place for Gurkhas who joined after July 1997.

Veterans who had their applications for settlement put on hold pending the court case - believed to be around 1,100 - will also be looked on favourably.

The policy will lead to fewer than 10,000 Gurkhas being affected instead of nearly 40,000.

A source said: "The problem is it is not just the soldiers but their dependants as well.

"It was estimated that if there had been a blanket policy then it would have cost the country between £1.1 billion and £1.5 billion."

In October, Mr Justice Blake said it was "irrational'' that Gurkhas were denied residency while other foreign soldiers serving in the Army were allowed to settle.

Lawyers for the soldiers had argued Britain owed the Gurkhas a "special debt'' of gratitude for their brave service, during which 50,000 have been killed and 13 have won Victoria Crosses.

It is typical how petty UK bureaucrats comprehensibly fuck up yet again and make honest people suffer. The current clowns in power are driving another nail into their casket, but there seem to be problems deeper ingrained in the civilian government and not just "New" L(ie)abour.

[DrMckay]

What the hell? You'd think these people would have learned not to fuck with the Ghurkas by now.

Especially after their exemplary service to Britain.

These legislatiors deserve a dull kukri where the sun don't shine.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

"The problem is it is not just the soldiers but their dependants as well.

"It was estimated that if there had been a blanket policy then it would have cost the country between £1.1 billion and £1.5 billion."

So what? I can think of worse things to spend that money on. At the very fucking least, we could bring the requirements to settle here into line with, oh, every other nationality on the planet.

[Big Orange]

Joanna Lumely is on the warpath:

[Sephirius]

This disgusts me in the worst way.
I like how they let islamofacist slime into and allow them to stay in their country, but don't let these people who have served them diligently, and yet they have but one request and they are denied it.
Shameful.
I'm tempted to write to my MP (here in Canuckistan) about it.
Not that it'd do much, but I think as a Commonwealth country we should be welcoming them with open arms if the brits don't want em.

[Big Orange]

I wonder if New Zealand or even Australia could take these veterans in instead?

[white_rabbit]

This is a fucking disgrace. I fucking hate our civil service. You can't even get rid of them by voting out the current party.

[CaptainChewbacca]

England sure knows how to do press conferences.

[Darth Tanner]

BBC linky

Update -

Gordon Brown's government has suffered a shock defeat in the Commons on its policy of restricting the right of former Gurkhas to settle in the UK.

MPs voted by 267 to 246 in favour of a Lib Dem motion that all Gurkhas be offered an equal right of residence.

Tory leader David Cameron backed the Lib Dem motion to scrap rules which leader Nick Clegg called "shameful".

Mr Brown's first significant defeat as PM came despite last minute concessions being offered to rebel Labour MPs.

Ms Lumley said the campaigners were "elated" as they had expected to lose the vote.

"When it came through we saw it on the screen and I can't tell you the sense of elation," she said.

Although we are not there yet as the commons vote has no legal binding on Brown (yeh! long live Democracy) there is little that the government can now do except let them all in, although I expect Brown to try to drag his feet until most of them die of old age first anyway. Hopefully when Cameron wins the next election this vote will bind him into letting them in.

[KlavoHunter]

Nearly HALF of them voted against it? These idiots haven't been paying attention to the outrage that has been the general reaction to the decision to keep the Gurkhas out, have they?

[Genii Lodus]

A lot of our Labour MPs are spineless snivelling worms. The upcoming vote on MP's expenses is looking like another loser for the government as well. Perhaps two defeats might spur someone into putting forward a motion of no confidence? Though it wouldn't pass since there's far too many Labour MPs going to be losing their seats at the next election, it's nice to dream of being shot of this useless bunch of actively bad fools.

[Ekiqa]

I fucking hate our civil service. You can't even get rid of them by voting out the current party.

And you're an idiot as this has nothing to do with the civil service, but with Labour's Home Secretary.

[Ubiquitous]

Nearly HALF of them voted against it? These idiots haven't been paying attention to the outrage that has been the general reaction to the decision to keep the Gurkhas out, have they?

Labour is totally out of touch with the nation sadly, and this stems from the one eyed son of the manse that is our PM. Thankfully, we only have to put up with him for a year before Cameron and the Tories sweep into power.

[DaveJB]

Am I the only one thinking "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again"? We seem to be locked in a vicious cycle of "Tory government comes in, manages the economy well, but fucks everything else up and alienates the voters" followed by "Labour government comes in, does a seemingly decent all-round job, but totally self-destructs and screws up the country in its last year," at which point the whole cycle repeats.

[Rye]

Am I the only one thinking "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again"? We seem to be locked in a vicious cycle of "Tory government comes in, manages the economy well, but fucks everything else up and alienates the voters" followed by "Labour government comes in, does a seemingly decent all-round job, but totally self-destructs and screws up the country in its last year," at which point the whole cycle repeats.

Were you awake in the 80s? Do you not remember the poll tax bullshit, the recessions and Thatcherism's attempts to destroy the NHS and everything else? Saying the tories "managed the economy well" is absolutely insane. There's a reason (actually several) Thatcher is one of the most hated people in the popular consciousness.

[Big Orange]

In the 1980s and early 1990s the Tories not only privatized our utilities with mixed results at best (I mean our future nuclear plants are going to be French operated, although I suppose the whiney Greens are partially responsible for that), they also restructed our banking and housing that laid the ground work to today's ongoing clusterfuck (there were smaller scale, localized recessions throughout their tenure).

[Genii Lodus]

If anything the current economic fuckup is because New Labour whored itself to the City far too much, mimicking Tory policy to show that Labour could be trusted with the economy. That Labour destroyed the UK economy in the 70s by letting unions strangle businesses while the Tories and then New Labour have destroyed it by letting the financial industry do it wants they've both been utter disasters.

I like how the government decided that the one part of the expenses vote they might lose should be fobbed off onto that ongoing commission: not at all related to how they couldn't have got it through. The government just seems completely out of touch: both the gurkha issue and their proposal that MPs be paid a flat rate for turning up (it's called a salary) are absurd.

[Big Orange]

Why will the Tories be any better, even if they've got a firmer grasp on "Imperial" issues such as fairly compensating the famed Gurkha auxiliaries? I dislike Cameron, he is an uninspired Etonian hack, with Obama deeming him a "lightweight" and later on we had Cameron shamelessly aping Obama's catchphrase "change" on a TV interview.

[Starglider]

Were you awake in the 80s? Do you not remember the poll tax bullshit

Didn't happen until 1989, and was fairly unpopular even within the Conservative party.

Thatcherism's attempts to destroy the NHS and everything else?

Thatcher explicitly stated that she had no desire to 'destroy the NHS'. She simply considered it over-staffed, over-funded and inefficient. The specifics of the Conservative reforms of the NHS are highly debatable (e.g. the 'internal market' ideas were incompatible with the public sector work ethos and just ended up doubling admin costs), but at no point have the Conservatives seriously considered abandoning universal health care. Major actually significantly increased the NHS budget in the early 90s, though not to the extent that Labour did later in the decade.

Saying the tories "managed the economy well" is absolutely insane.

At the end of Labour rule in 1979, Britain was completely dysfunctional, largely due to runaway union control (Labour caved to the unions at every possible opportunity). Vast subsidies were being wasted on propping up worker wages rather than any kind of investment. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives solution to the problem threw away the baby with the bathwater (arguably a lot more manufacturing industry could have been retained if the transition to private ownership had been done more carefully), but ultimately I still blame the unions for utterly refusing to compromise. Their unshakable fixation on absolute (and constant) wage increases and ludicrous benefits, as opposed to a fair share in their company's success (or failure), is the true culprit.

There's a reason (actually several) Thatcher is one of the most hated people in the popular consciousness.

In northern (post-)industrial towns, perhaps. I grew up in Wokingham (near Reading), and she was pretty popular around there.

they also restructed our banking and housing that laid the ground work to today's ongoing clusterfuck

Significant banking deregulation did occur under the Tories, which greatly contributed to the growth in UK GNP because the UK is the largest exporter of financial services in the world. However as with the US, the key deregulation contributing to this crisis, and failure to keep regulation up to date with new trading practices, occured in the late 90s and early 2000s - under New Labor. Not that I think the Tories would have done any better on this, but basically all First World governments failed to see this coming, so there's not much point singling them out. Similarly claiming that Tory efforts to encourage home ownership among former council home renters contributed to an affordable housing crisis is misleading; disposing of older housing stock in this way would have been fine had not new home construction ground to a halt under Labour.

[Rye]

Didn't happen until 1989, and was fairly unpopular even within the Conservative party.

Oh well then, that practically makes it a non-issue when it comes to pointing out the tories bad record.

Thatcher explicitly stated that she had no desire to 'destroy the NHS'. She simply considered it over-staffed, over-funded and inefficient.

Yes, and to combat these "inefficiencies", she horrendously fucked the system; this is why under Labour, more and more money had to be thrown at it. The people working in the NHS had a massive backlog of absent wage increases and vital infrastructure that hadn't come about because of the Thatcherite Tory experiment of "most work for least pay".

At the end of Labour rule in 1979, Britain was completely dysfunctional, largely due to runaway union control (Labour caved to the unions at every possible opportunity). Vast subsidies were being wasted on propping up worker wages rather than any kind of investment. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives solution to the problem threw away the baby with the bathwater (arguably a lot more manufacturing industry could have been retained if the transition to private ownership had been done more carefully), but ultimately I still blame the unions for utterly refusing to compromise. Their unshakable fixation on absolute (and constant) wage increases and ludicrous benefits, as opposed to a fair share in their company's success (or failure), is the true culprit.

That's horrendously broad strokes you're painting with there.

In northern (post-)industrial towns, perhaps. I grew up in Wokingham (near Reading), and she was pretty popular around there.

No surprises really. People in a London satellite town of a government that thinks the UK is London tend to be more conservative. The South East never has to take it up the arse.

[Lord Pounder]

One thing that strikes me is why is Cameron getting all the kudo's was it not a Lib Dem motion? This may not be a popular view but we've seen Tories fuck up, we've seen Labour get on to power on the back of these mistakes only to fuck it up further. Why not give the Lib Dems a chance to fuck it up?

[Rye]

One thing that strikes me is why is Cameron getting all the kudo's was it not a Lib Dem motion? This may not be a popular view but we've seen Tories fuck up, we've seen Labour get on to power on the back of these mistakes only to fuck it up further. Why not give the Lib Dems a chance to fuck it up?

To be fair to the media, that's not true at all. Even Cameron said it was basically Clegg's idea first; and the Beeb and the other main sources of news have all acknowledged it.

[Crazedwraith]

Am I the only one thinking "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again"? We seem to be locked in a vicious cycle of "Tory government comes in, manages the economy well, but fucks everything else up and alienates the voters" followed by "Labour government comes in, does a seemingly decent all-round job, but totally self-destructs and screws up the country in its last year," at which point the whole cycle repeats.

That would seem to be a pretty easy cycle to break. Start voting Lib Dem.

That said I don't think their last sucession of leaders have been up to much, ever since Kennedy got the boot. I think this is the first time I've noticed Clegg do anything worth while. Although I can't say I'm a close follower of politics.

[Captain Seafort]

That said I don't think their last sucession of leaders have been up to much, ever since Kennedy got the boot. I think this is the first time I've noticed Clegg do anything worth while. Although I can't say I'm a close follower of politics.

Their permanent leaders haven't been up to much since Paddy Ashdown quit, although Vince Cable came across as by far the best of the three party leaders during his stint.

[Ubiquitous]

Why will the Tories be any better, even if they've got a firmer grasp on "Imperial" issues such as fairly compensating the famed Gurkha auxiliaries? I dislike Cameron, he is an uninspired Etonian hack, with Obama deeming him a "lightweight" and later on we had Cameron shamelessly aping Obama's catchphrase "change" on a TV interview.

The Tories actually strike me as having intelligent MP's. The Labour benches seem to be filled with people who aren't very sharp. I'd much rather have an elitist etonian who has probably had a great education and is clearly a very articulate person as opposed to the hordes of 'brains' like Ed Balls and Geoff Hoon who have run our country into a real mess and seem incapable of detecting the oublic mood because they are so out of touch.