ChatterBank2 mins ago
There are times I'm ashamed to be British
The Ghurkas. Need I say more?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LewPaper. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, jake they are not mercenaries any more than the Polish airmen who fought with the RAF in WW2 were, and it does you no credit to suggest that they are.
The Nepalese Gurkhas actually fought against the British army in the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816). The treaty that ended that dispute included a clause that allowed the British to recruit young men from Nepal into their army, principally to strengthen the British rule in India.
Since then the British Army has had a regiment of Gurkhas and they have fought as part of the British Army in most of the major conflicts. Of all the Victoria Crosses awarded, Gurkhas have been the recipients of more than 10%.
This is not a Party Political Broadcast (which I know you will accuse me of) as I doubt the situation would be any different under any other administration. It just strikes me as a little odd that all the dregs, waifs and strays (some of whom openly despise this country but are nonetheless happy to accept its asylum and hospitality) from all over the world are allowed to settle here and enjoy all the comforts and benefits on offer, whilst former soldiers who fought for this nation are denied similar rights.
I�ll not bother to respond to Quinlad as I've got to go and wash my hair..
The Nepalese Gurkhas actually fought against the British army in the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816). The treaty that ended that dispute included a clause that allowed the British to recruit young men from Nepal into their army, principally to strengthen the British rule in India.
Since then the British Army has had a regiment of Gurkhas and they have fought as part of the British Army in most of the major conflicts. Of all the Victoria Crosses awarded, Gurkhas have been the recipients of more than 10%.
This is not a Party Political Broadcast (which I know you will accuse me of) as I doubt the situation would be any different under any other administration. It just strikes me as a little odd that all the dregs, waifs and strays (some of whom openly despise this country but are nonetheless happy to accept its asylum and hospitality) from all over the world are allowed to settle here and enjoy all the comforts and benefits on offer, whilst former soldiers who fought for this nation are denied similar rights.
I�ll not bother to respond to Quinlad as I've got to go and wash my hair..
I agree 100% naomi.
New Judge,
I'm glad you mentioned the Anglo0Nepalese War, I was going to, suffice it to say, that that war ended a draw, with both sides full of praise and admiration for the other sides bravery and fighting prowess.
A simple answer to 'can this country afford to support them',
Get rid of all the illegals and terrorists, and there'll be plenty, with enough over for the right causes in this country.
Let them in.
this country owes them more than they can ever repay.
New Judge,
I'm glad you mentioned the Anglo0Nepalese War, I was going to, suffice it to say, that that war ended a draw, with both sides full of praise and admiration for the other sides bravery and fighting prowess.
A simple answer to 'can this country afford to support them',
Get rid of all the illegals and terrorists, and there'll be plenty, with enough over for the right causes in this country.
Let them in.
this country owes them more than they can ever repay.
If it weren't for them and thousands like them, we wouldn't be having this controversy. I'd really like to know who, precisely, in this government or civil service thinks they shouldn't be allowed in or to stay. Let's have some names and have them explain their motives. Isn't there a Freedom of Information Act?
The Ghurkas weren't enlisted by the Brit Forces they volunteered as soldiers for an income. As did the Sikhs and muslims in the last wars. They chose to work/serve as soldiers for pay and were only loyal so long as the pay was regular. They were also offered a better standard of living than they already had. It was no more than employment and I can't see why we are eternally obliged for offering work.
There is a little difference, terambulam between being employed in a country to (say) pick fruit, and enlisting in the armed forces of a country knowing that you may almost certainly be asked to risk all for the good of that country.
I don�t quite understand what difference you are trying to make between being �enlisted� and volunteering for service because volunteers are enlisted when they join up. Perhaps you mean �conscripted� instead of enlisted. Nobody has been conscripted into the British Army since 1960.
Yes, the Gurkhas did volunteer, in the same way as any other member of HM forces has done for the last 48 years. Bearing that in mind, it is even more revolting that these men are being treated so badly having volunteered for service.
British people see all manner of criminals, terrorists and scroungers allowed into this country. Once here they are showered with gifts and money and told that nobody can remove them, no matter what they get up to.
By contrast we have a relatively small number of men who have devoted a large chunk of their lives to military service for this nation. Yes, they got paid, but so do all soldiers in the service of the UK. Whether you agree or not that they should be allowed to enlist is immaterial. They are welcomed into the army and that is that.
These chaps, however, find themselves treated less generously than a fugitive terrorist just because they left their regiment before it relocated its headquarters back to Britain. I find it extremely offensive.
I don�t quite understand what difference you are trying to make between being �enlisted� and volunteering for service because volunteers are enlisted when they join up. Perhaps you mean �conscripted� instead of enlisted. Nobody has been conscripted into the British Army since 1960.
Yes, the Gurkhas did volunteer, in the same way as any other member of HM forces has done for the last 48 years. Bearing that in mind, it is even more revolting that these men are being treated so badly having volunteered for service.
British people see all manner of criminals, terrorists and scroungers allowed into this country. Once here they are showered with gifts and money and told that nobody can remove them, no matter what they get up to.
By contrast we have a relatively small number of men who have devoted a large chunk of their lives to military service for this nation. Yes, they got paid, but so do all soldiers in the service of the UK. Whether you agree or not that they should be allowed to enlist is immaterial. They are welcomed into the army and that is that.
These chaps, however, find themselves treated less generously than a fugitive terrorist just because they left their regiment before it relocated its headquarters back to Britain. I find it extremely offensive.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.