http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8041765.stm
You'll note one of the people who died was a Gurkha, so it's perfectly alright to send them to Afghanistan to fight and die, but God forbid those fuzzy-wuzzies that survive should actually want to live here...
2
Well he would have had the right actually since he's after the 1997 cut-off date.
Doesn't mean Lumley isn't right of course.
Doesn't mean Lumley isn't right of course.
3
I suppose my position is that this just shows that they are fighting and dying for the British Army, just as they have always done, why these people even have to ask in to become residents in the first place is beyond me, other people just have to sit citizenship tests, Gurkhas, I think, have somewhat proved their patriotism beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt.
Check out my music on my YouTube channel :
https://www.youtube.com/user/PRDibble/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/PRDibble/videos
5
It is f#####g ridiculous, frankly. The Gurkhas - and other foreign born troops of course - give and have given more for this country than 99% (+) of the native-born population. They should not have to even apply for a right to remain - it should be automatic (dual if desired) citizenship.
But, y'know, they're only funny looking foreigners, and all that money could be saved for truly valuable things like second homes and pay-per-view porn.
But, y'know, they're only funny looking foreigners, and all that money could be saved for truly valuable things like second homes and pay-per-view porn.
6
I'm trying to figure out whether telling the widow of a recently killed man that she would have to leave the country is incredible arrogance on the part of said officials or a masterly executed attempt by the same people to drum up further support for the Gurkhas.
Cause although I usually bet on stupidity given the fact that their treatment is currently high profile news it would take some serious stupidity to try that so soon after the man's death.
7
Given that it was based on a 'Sunday Mirror report' it's probably made up in some journos head.karajorma wrote:I'm trying to figure out whether telling the widow of a recently killed man that she would have to leave the country is incredible arrogance on the part of said officials or a masterly executed attempt by the same people to drum up further support for the Gurkhas.
Cause although I usually bet on stupidity given the fact that their treatment is currently high profile news it would take some serious stupidity to try that so soon after the man's death.
8
This story was the front cover of my local paper.
Some of the hightlights showing how ridiculous this was are thisA gurkha war veteran was denied a life-saving kidney transplant because the Government would not allow his sister to enter the country.
Kebahang Chemjong, 44, from Canterbury, fought in the British Army for 21 years but says that was not enough to convince Home Office officials to treat his wellbeing as a priority.
and thisHowever, the Government’s overseas representatives advised against allowing his sister into the UK because there were no official documents to prove her identity.
They also claimed that even if she was telling the truth, letting her into the country would be “a drain on NHS resources”.
This was quickly refuted by Mr Chemjong’s doctor, who pointed out that keeping her patient on dialysis treatment would be six times more expensive than a kidney transplant.
So you can discuss how long it didn't take but can't discuss how long it did?A UK Border Agency spokesman disputed Mr Chemjong’s claims.
He said: “It is simply not true to claim that it took 18 months to issue this person a visa.”
When asked how long it did take, the spokesman said the agency was not allowed to discuss individual cases.