An Utter Disgrace

[Grumpmeister]

So let me get this straight, we've opened out borders to anyone who can get over here regardless of who they are or whether or not they have any intention to work but the government refuses to allow people who have served and fought for this country the right to settle here if they retired before 1997?

If it was at all possible, this government should be ashamed of themselves!!!  But this bunch of self important selfish ignorant bastards wont see anything wrong in denying them the right to settle here unless they get something out of it in return.

Five retired Gurkhas and the widow of another veteran are fighting a legal battle for the right to remain in Britain - the country they fought for, and say they love.

The test case has taken nearly two years to come to court.

Madan Gurung, 54, a Gurkha who served with the British Army for 24 years until he retired in 1993, is hoping he will now finally be able to put down roots in the UK.

At the moment is staying with friends and well-wishers.

But he stresses he is not ill, does not want to settle here for benefits or free medical treatment, and wants to work.

"If I'd been given the right to stay here I'd be happy to serve the Crown again," he says.

Pension rights

The Gurkhas' main base moved from Hong Kong to the UK in 1997.

Last year, the government agreed that Gurkhas who retired after this date could remain in the country and would receive a pension on the same terms as the rest of the British Army.

But retired Gurkhas like Mr Gurung, who left the service in 1993, are not covered by the arrangement.

He first applied to live in Britain in 2006 but was turned down.

He came to the UK to reapply, and has been unable to work while he waits for a decision.

Back in Nepal there are elderly Gurkhas in need of medical treatment hard to come by in their country.

Campaigners say they can only assume the government is worried about a drain on resources.

But would the British public object to offering NHS treatment to these men who were prepared to die for Britain?

The retired Gurkhas going to court think not.

The 30 or 40 who took a petition to Downing Street ahead of the High Court hearing believe the British public back them in their struggle for equal rights.

Gurkhas are hand picked from a fiercely contested recruitment contest in Nepal to win the right to fight for Britain.

Known for their bravery, their close camaraderie and endurance, they have seen combat all over the world, with 200,000 fighting in the two World Wars.

In March, Mr Gurung and others handed back their long-service medals in protest at the way the government has treated them.

Now all he has left is his Gurkha's hat.

"I think the government is scared," he says.

Mr Gurung says he feels upset at having left his family behind in Nepal.

But he is grateful to be finally getting his day in court.

"The people of Britain are behind us and I hope they do the right thing," he said.

Tough times

Some Gurkhas have found it difficult to settle back in Nepal, says Chandra Bahadur Budhathoti, 54.
 
The government says it has tried to be fair to all former servicemen

He retired in 1985 but said it was difficult to survive amidst the political and economic instability in Nepal.

Consequently, he moved to the Middle East to work in security and management in Kuwait.

But he wants to settle in Britain and thinks his contribution to this country should be enough.

The Gurkhas' solicitor, Martin Howe, says the case has dragged on for so long that seven or eight Gurkhas who applied for entry into the UK have already died.

"We need this case to be settled quickly," he said.

"Some of the men I represent are in their 70s and 80s and in desperate need of medical care."

He represents around 1,500 men who wish to come to the UK, but says the government is fighting "tooth and nail" to keep them out.

He sees it as a clear-cut case of discrimination, as the Gurkhas have not been treated equally, compared to other foreign soldiers.

The Home Office says it has tried to be as fair as possible to all ex-servicemen, including Gurkhas.

But it says that the automatic right to settle in the UK is normally linked to a long period of residence here or a close family tie, and this would not normally be the case for a Gurkha who retired before 1997.

[Snoopy]

Not only that but they were never paid the same pensions as British Soldiers but lower one "commensurate with standards in their own country" which has led to their pensions being about one sixth of that received by British Soldiers. This pension anomaly was only corrected in 2007 when it was conceded that they should receive the same pension rights as every other soldier in the British Army BUT only if they retired after 1997.
In the two World Wars they lost over 43,000 men killed in action fighting for us. They have fought in just about every campaign that the British Army has been involved in since 1815 and have won 13 Victoria Crosses.
We owe these people a lot more than money and accommodation.
A "Thank You" would not go amiss either.

[Grumpmeister]

I agree completely Snoop. My initial disgust when i heard this in the news was that the government is perfectly happy to let anyone in except people who have shed blood for this country.

[Grumpmeister]

YES!! The High Court has overturned the runling and the Gurkhas can stay. The result has even forced the Home Office to review its policy as well as the cases of the remaining Gurkhas. 

A group of retired Gurkhas fighting for the right to settle in Britain have won their immigration test case at London's High Court.

They were challenging immigration rules which said that those who retired from the British Army before 1997 did not have an automatic right to stay.

Prominent supporter actress Joanna Lumley said it was a "chance to right a great wrong".

The government said it would now review all Gurkhas' cases.

'Debt of honour'

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 residence and could be refused and deported.

The judgement could affect some 2,000 former Gurkhas who retired before 1997.

The judge, Mr Justice Blake, 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.

He ruled that instructions given by the Home Office to immigration officials were unlawful and needed urgent revision.

Laywer Martin Howe said: "Today we have seen a tremendous and historic victory for the gallant Gurkha veterans of Nepal.

"This is a victory that restores honour and dignity to deserving soldiers who faithfully served in Her Majesty's armed forces.

"It is a victory for common sense; a victory for fairness; and a victory for the British sense of what is right."

The five ex-Gurkhas involved in the test case were L/Cpl Gyanendra Rai, Deo Prakash Limbu, Cpl Chakra Limbu, L/Cpl Birendra Shrestha and Bhim Gurung. Gita Mukhiya also took part on behalf her deceased husband.

Gurkhas have been part of the British 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 fighting in the two world wars.

'Wonderful vindication'

Lumley, whose father served with the Gurkhas, was one of those leading the campaign.

Outside court, she said: "This day is more important than I can tell you because it gives our country the chance to right a great wrong and to wipe out a national shame that has stained us all."

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said it was a "wonderful vindication" for those who had campaigned for a change in the law.

"I've always felt that if someone is prepared to die for this country, then they should have the right to live in this country," he said.

"The key thing now is to look at the ruling in detail and to make sure that the government now translates that into action and doesn't try and squirm out of it."

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said in a statement that the Home Office would revise its guidance surrounding the 1997 cut-off date.

"I have always been clear that where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families should be considered for settlement," she said.

"We will honour our commitment to the Gurkhas by reviewing all cases by the end of the year."

Compelling case? B@llocls, if that was the case then this would never have needed to go to court in the first place. More mealy mouthed back pedalling from a useless Brownite Prima Donna.

[Nick]

I want a gun