Gurkhas

[repiV]

The way this government treats the Gurkhas makes me sick. They fight for this country and are then not allowed to retire here. It's all the more galling considering some of the utter scum they welcome with open arms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8014265.stm

 

[Eejit]

It's pretty bad. They deserve British citizenship (well, 'subjects') more than most people in the country.

One of my uncles is actually descended from the guy who helped create the Gurkhas regiment.

 

[repiV]

That they do, it actually makes me feel ashamed. It's not even like there are many of them. You can tell the country is run by people with no sense of public service, moral duty or honour and respect for those who deserve it.

That's a pretty cool family connection.

 

[Solaris]

Yes it's bizzare. I thought they were doing it to look tough on immigration to you right wing daily mail types. But even they think it's out of line...

 

[Eejit]

Honestly I'm fairly pro-immigration in general, but even if the government isn't they should treat the Gurkhas a lot better.

 

[repiV]

There's immigration that helps us, and there's immigration that hurts us. Somehow we've managed to create a situation where Islamic extremists can come into this country, preach against the West on national TV and claim state benefits. And where our major cities are full of ghettos.

Yet it's really difficult for a skilled migrant who wants to embrace our culture to actually get into the country and stay here. It shouldn't be difficult for eg. American professionals to immigrate here, yet for some reason it is.

And as for the Gurkhas, I can't think of any other group of people who deserve not only residency but British citizenship more. And even IF having them here would hurt us economically, tough. We OWE them, big time.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

While thousands of Gurkhas are barred from entering the country, about 30,000 asylum seekers a year remain here until their application is processed.

About 9,000 a year are allowed to stay.

On top of these are the dangerous criminals we have allowed to stay in Britain because barring them would 'breach their human rights'.

Raymond Horne, a 62-year-old predatory paedophile, was deported from Australia, where he lived since the age of five. Britain had no choice but to let him in.

On the same day in March last year, Gurkha hero Gyanendra Rai was refused NHS treatment.

The 53-year-old is partly paralysed after his back was torn open by an Argentine shell during the Falklands War.

Italian-born Learco Chindamo, 28, who knifed to death headmaster Philip Lawrence in 1995, is free to stay in the UK after lawyers claimed that deportation would 'breach his right to a family life'.

Hate preacher Abu Qatada, 48, is wanted by Jordan for involvement in terrorist attacks but remains in Britain after the Law Lords ruled that it was illegal to deport him in case he was tortured at home.

Pakistani illegal immigrant Ahsan Sabri, who killed a young writer by driving into her at 60mph, was given the right to stay in the UK because he had married a British woman and had a daughter.

This pretty much sums up the UK immigration policy. We allow over 600,000 Eastern European immigrants no questions asked, we allow Asylum Seekers who just want to milk the system,People with criminal records are welcomed, we allow terrorist sympathizers and supporters, yet these hero's who fought for our country are barred. They've done more for this country than all these useless ministers put together and have earned our utmost respect. I honestly felt more ashamed to be British after hearing this.

 

[Bob_Marley]

It is utterly disgusting that we treat our servicemen this way. It is shameful that our government dares to treat men who have been ready at our nation's defence for many years in this fashion.

 

[Raziaar]

I just watched the video on that link.

That's a ****ing disgrace, to be honest.

It seems like they're saying... okay okay, we'll let them have citizenship. If they can achieve this almost impossible list of things! Muahahaha.

 

[Solaris]

This pretty much sums up the UK immigration policy. We allow over 600,000 Eastern European immigrants no questions asked, we allow Asylum Seekers who just want to milk the system,People with criminal records are welcomed, we allow terrorist sympathizers and supporters, yet these hero's who fought for our country are barred. They've done more for this country than all these useless ministers put together and have earned our utmost respect. I honestly felt more ashamed to be British after hearing this.

See it's ignorant borderline racist people like you that make things like this Gurkha rule happen. The government think if they are tough on these high profile brown people, people like you will go "Yeah nice one Brown! There's no black in the union jack".

I have few problems with the UK immigration problem, other than it is too harsh on people like asylum seekers. (who by the way get almost ****ing nothing from the 'system' and are denied work permits alot of the time.

Have you ever met an Asylum seeker? Most of them ****ing fleed some of the worst shit imaginable. They deserve far better treatment than they get, as do the Ghurkas.

 

[jet_porkins]

Durkah durkah.

Also, this is unjust and all that jazz.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

See it's ignorant borderline racist people like you that make things like this Gurkha rule happen. The government think if they are tough on these high profile brown people, people like you will go "Yeah nice one Brown! There's no black in the union jack".

I have few problems with the UK immigration problem, other than it is too harsh on people like asylum seekers. (who by the way get almost ****ing nothing from the 'system' and are denied work permits alot of the time.

Have you ever met an Asylum seeker? Most of them ****ing fleed some of the worst shit imaginable. They deserve far better treatment than they get, as do the Ghurkas.

Then why don't they try and claim Asylum in France then?
The rules state that a refugee has to claim asylum in the first country of entry into the EU.
Yet they seem to ignore that and travel across several EU state to get here, why?
There are thousands of them in Calais trying to get into the UK illegally. The reason is because of our generous benefits. Asylums while being processed get £42 a week, £66 if your married. They get £300 if they are pregnant plus an extra £5 a week, Free NHS and prescription, Free Housing and Education. In France they get nothing. That's the reason they flood here. If they were really hard pressed they would try claiming Asylum in the first country they land in instead of trying to get here illegally to claim Asylum.

Of course now i'm branded a racist, because most Asylum seekers are coloured and therefore must be the real reason i'm against it. I guarantee you if we made getting Asylum as tough as it is in France, and made it so you couldn't get handouts until you had contributed to the economy of this country for a minimum of 5 years then maybe people wouldn't see the UK as a money pit.

 

[Solaris]

Then why don't they try and claim Asylum in France then?
The rules state that a refugee has to claim asylum in the first country of entry into the EU.
Yet they seem to ignore that and travel across several EU state to get here, why?
There are thousands of them in Calais trying to get into the UK illegally. The reason is because of our generous benefits. Asylums while being processed get £42 a week, £66 if your married. They get £300 if they are pregnant plus an extra £5 a week, Free NHS and prescription, Free Housing and Education.

In France they get nothing. That's the reason they flood here. If they were really hard pressed they would try claiming Asylum in the first country they land in instead of trying to get here illegally to claim Asylum.

Of course now i'm branded a racist, because most Asylum seekers are coloured and therefore must be the real reason i'm against it. I guarantee you if we made getting Asylum as tough as it is in France, and made it so you couldn't get handouts until you had contributed to the economy of this country for a minimum of 5 years then maybe people wouldn't see the UK as a money pit.

You answered your own question there. The reason they don't apply for France is because the French refuse to help fellow human beings fleeing persecution.

It's like saying in WW2 that we shouldn't accept Jewish refugees because they should have tried to seek refuge in Italy instead. A country where they would have found no help whatsoever.

Why do you think if they were 'hardpressed' they would try and apply to France? Why would they if they were guaranteed refusal?

 

[CR0M]

The way this government treats the Gurkhas makes me sick. They fight for this country and are then not allowed to retire here. It's all the more galling considering some of the utter scum they welcome with open arms.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Another thing on the long list of reasons why this country sucks. Every step our ****ing incompetent government takes leads us from bad, to worse.

 

[Solaris]

Another thing on the long list of reasons why this country sucks. Every step our ****ing incompetent government takes leads us from bad, to worse.

Bill set to expose gender pay gap


Ms Harman says the recession is no excuse to leave inequalities unchecked
Many employers will be made to reveal how much they pay men compared with women, under the Equalities Bill.
Firms employing at least 250 staff would be required to publish average hourly rates for men and women by 2013.
The Bill also aims to tackle discrimination against the elderly and people from working class backgrounds.
It has been backed by charities for the elderly but business groups called for a moratorium on new employment law and said it could delay economic recovery.
Minister for Equality Harriet Harman pledged the bill would help to "narrow the gap between rich and poor and make Britain more equal".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

 

[nurizeko]

*feigned indignation at the treatment of foreigners*



I would like to see the ghurka's getting to retire here, but aside from that, this is a complete non-issue for me.


I don't care, basically.

I didn't force them to sign onto her royal majesties payroll and I didn't ask them to fight for me.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

You can tell the country is run by people with no sense of public service, moral duty or honour and respect for those who deserve it.

That's a pretty cool family connection.

Makes you wonder why the country is going to sh*t, and they are just completely clueless. Can we have people who are actually intelligent, not those who think they are please

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

Fantastic. Seriously, if this actually happens, and happens the way its supposed too, I will gladly retract the statement. But I'm pretty certain things are going to screw up somehow.

My statement was a bit harsh though. There are many decent politicians out there, and I don't even want to attack the labour party itself - just the corrupt, useless ones who are in power currently.

 

[CptStern]

that's not a ghurka, THIS is a ghurka!




...khukri, I mean. I have one similiar to the one in the photo. it's a deadly looking mofo. also this situation sucks, they should at least receive a pension. not sure if citizenship though. I mean how many americans would agree to iraqis who fought for the US getting citizenship?

 

[repiV]

that's not a ghurka, THIS is a ghurka!




...khukri, I mean. I have one similiar to the one in the photo. it's a deadly looking mofo. also this situation sucks, they should at least receive a pension. not sure if citizenship though. I mean how many americans would agree to iraqis who fought for the US getting citizenship?

The Ghurkas are not allied forces, but a regiment of the British Army. Big difference I think.

 

[repiV]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

No shit men earn more on average than women, I'm quite surprised the gap isn't bigger. You don't find many female salespeople, executives or other high earners compared with men, a large proportion of the low paid jobs are occupied by women, men are far more career-focused than women, and men don't cost the company massive amounts in maternity leave for doing the sum total of **** all.

What a load of tripe.

Equal opportunities does not mean "pay women more because they're women". Once you get above the drone level of employment, people will rarely earn the same as the other people in their company for doing the same job, because salary is negotiated at an individual level and differs depending on experience and value the person offers to the company. Companies don't pay women any less just because they happen to be women, women earn less as a group because women have less to offer to the workplace as a group. That said, this bullshit isn't even talking about comparing like-for-like jobs. Totally preposterous. You might as well complain that a cleaner doesn't earn the same as a finance manager, because it's essentially the same thing in this case.

Anything they try and do will backfire as usual. Small companies will try and avoid hiring women of childbearing age now because if they got pregnant it could quite literally bankrupt them. Smart move...

 

[The Monkey]

^ Then they should make the men take out their paternal leave too, to equal things up.

 

[repiV]

^ Then they should make the men take out their paternal leave too, to equal things up.

Or how about we don't force companies to pay people nine months' salary for doing nothing, with no guarantee they will ever bother to return to work. If you want to have a baby, fund it yourself.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Fantastic. Seriously, if this actually happens, and happens the way its supposed too, I will gladly retract the statement. But I'm pretty certain things are going to screw up somehow.

My statement was a bit harsh though. There are many decent politicians out there, and I don't even want to attack the labour party itself - just the corrupt, useless ones who are in power currently.

I thought that bill sounded good, a little to good for this incompetent government and well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yers-positively-discriminate-AGAINST-men.html

Yep, now you can discriminate against men now legally. Why can't they just expose those who are paying women less then men and shame them. Why can't we just treat everyone equally based on their skill and not on ethnicity and gender. Promoting discrimination towards one gender seems the wrong way for me.

 

[repiV]

Hypocritical parasites. Anyway, we have a women's minister so when do we get a men's minister?

For that matter, how about some awareness and support for men suffering from domestic violence. And why do we not have any legislation to stop men being discriminated against in employment in childcare or primary education?

Discrimination against women my arse.

 

[The Monkey]

Or how about we don't force companies to pay people nine months' salary for doing nothing, with no guarantee they will ever bother to return to work. If you want to have a baby, fund it yourself.

Only of the main reasons this was put in place was to ensure that women would have an equal opportunity as men on the job market, and not have to choose between career and family. And to my knowledge the government pays for the paternal leave, not the companies. Besides, having an effective childcare system increases births rate as it encourages people to have children. You being, against immigration, should welcome that, as you won't rely entirely on immigration to prevent your population from shrinking.

Hypocritical parasites. Anyway, we have a women's minister so when do we get a men's minister?

For that matter, how about some awareness and support for men suffering from domestic violence. And why do we not have any legislation to stop men being discriminated against in employment in childcare or primary education?

Discrimination against women my arse.

Men's suffering from domestic violence and being discriminated on the job marker is jack shit compared to that of women. Do you really have that much of a problem imagining that white males such as yourself might not be the most oppressed group in society?

 

[Eejit]

Companies don't pay women any less just because they happen to be women, women earn less as a group because women have less to offer to the workplace as a group.

What a load of tripe.

 

[repiV]

Only of the main reasons this was put in place was to ensure that women would have an equal opportunity as men on the job market, and not have to choose between career and family.

It's not really an equal opportunity is it, because they get preferential treatment on account of their "special needs". Quite obviously a woman that has to balance a career and family is never going to be as attractive, an employee for a demanding job as a man or childless woman who has no such conflict of interest.

And to my knowledge the government pays for the paternal leave, not the companies.

Not in this country. Paternity leave is also two weeks, as opposed to nearly a year for maternity.

I didn't get paid jack shit when I got injured and couldn't work for half a year, and why should I because I wasn't doing any work. In fact I would feel like a sponger being paid for not working. So why should a company have to fork out for a woman who decides to have a baby to not do any work for them?

Besides, having an effective childcare system increases births rate as it encourages people to have children. You being, against immigration, should welcome that, as you won't rely entirely on immigration to prevent your population from shrinking.

The UK is the size of Sweden with anywhere between 60 and 80 million people, depending on who you believe. We have enough people already.

Men's suffering from domestic violence and being discriminated on the job marker is jack shit compared to that of women. Do you really have that much of a problem imagining that white males such as yourself might not be the most oppressed group in society?

Men suffer just as much domestic violence as women, and more psychological abuse, it just doesn't get anything like the same exposure because there's a huge taboo attached to it. Therein lies the popular myth that women are helpless and men are all evil. Good luck getting a favourable divorce outcome if you're a man.

Women don't get discriminated against in the job market, it's bollocks. Companies employ the best person for the job, it's entirely in their interests to do so. There are far less women that are suitable for the higher end jobs than men, and far less women who are ambitious enough to want and achieve the higher end jobs. Women and men are not driven by the same things, it's foolish to overlook this.

In this country, however, it's assumed that, as a man, you must be a paedophile if you like children or want to work with them.

Many police forces and government agencies actively and openly discriminate against white males in their recruitment processes, because they want to recruit more women and ethnic minorities to "make up the numbers". No such practice exists in reverse.

Equality of outcome does not equal equality of opportunity.

 

[repiV]

What a load of tripe.

So women are just as ambitious and career-driven as men then. They have as much time to devote to climbing through the workplace ranks, and don't take huge breaks in their career more often.

Actually...no.

 

[Eejit]

So women are just as ambitious and career-driven as men then. They have as much time to devote to climbing through the workplace ranks, and don't take huge breaks in their career more often.

Actually...no.

All of them? No. Many? Yes. The others still get discriminated against because of unfair generalisations and attitudes such as yours.

 

[repiV]

It's not an unfair generalisation at all. Many of them are not as ambitious, many of them do not have the time, qualifications, experience, drive or even the desire to really achieve in the workplace. That explains the "gender pay gap". Whether the rest of them are just as capable or not is irrelevant, there will always be a gender pay gap and it has nothing to do with discrimination. Trying to address the issue will only cause discrimination against men, because equal opportunities already exist.

The really high earners of this world sacrifice their lives for their work, and are often bordering on psychopathic in character. These characteristics, and desires, are far more common amongst men than women.

 

[Eejit]

Oh please, it's blatent discrimination against an entire gender based on the idea that every woman will prefer children over a career.
The glass ceiling is a real issue in almost all lines of work so even if your amateur psychology is accurate with regards to high end corporate CEOs and the like it does nothing to excuse the massive amount of sexual discrimination that exists.

 

[Cephius]

How did this go from a thread about Gurkhas to about equality in the work place?

Anyway, we've let loads of leeches and scumbags into the country, so why not a bunch of retired men who were willing to die for us?

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Many police forces and government agencies actively and openly discriminate against white males in their recruitment processes, because they want to recruit more women and ethnic minorities to "make up the numbers". No such practice exists in reverse.

Equality of outcome does not equal equality of opportunity.

I have a friend who is a firefighter and when they were recruiting they had to take on a women despite her failing the tests and being a health and safety risk just because she was a women. They needed more people to fight fires, instead now they have a women firefighter who is not allowed anywhere near the fire. All she can do is ride on the fire engine to the scene, but not participate. And yet his boss told him that she'll get promoted before him because they are not enough females higher up in the ranks. And to make things worse she's was on maternity leave for 10 months, she came back for 4 months before getting pregnant again and taking 11 months more leave. There are just some professions that are male-orianated and pay well.
When i was studying in my IT course there wasn't a single women in the class, there was a full class of women in the child-care classes. I wonder which career pays more?

Women can be successful, but they have to sacrifice family life just like men do. Alot of guy's would love to spend time with their kids, but can't due to careers. Women have to do the same.

In society there is a clear biased towards women. For example a man accused of rape can be named and shamed by the media before a verdict is given. Yet the women is given anonymity. There has been some cases where the women has lied yet while she can still keep her anonymity, the innocent mans name has been dragged though the mud. The stigmata of being accused of rape and having your face plastered over the papers and TV never leave.

 

[CptStern]

And to make things worse she's was on maternity leave for 10 months, she came back for 4 months before getting pregnant again and taking 11 months more leave. There are just some professions that are male-orianated and pay well

so you're saying her career choice should stop her from having children? it's her right to take maternity leave. the male firefighters are also allowed to take paternal leave .are you going to complain about that as well?

this is the exact same argument that's always been used against women in the workplace, except it's at least 50 years out of date

In society there is a clear biased towards women. For example a man accused of rape can be named and shamed by the media before a verdict is given. Yet the women is given anonymity.

seriously wtf is this? she's the victem. And where is this publication ban on naming the victems of rape? if the perp is caught, the victem must press charges or the police have no case (they can press charges if the charge warrents it) at that point it's made public knowledge and unless specifically barred by a judge the identities are not witheld




some of you are borderline mysoginists. bitterly so

 

[PimpinPenguin]

seriously wtf is this? she's the victem. And where is this publication ban on naming the victems of rape? if the perp is caught, the victem must press charges or the police have no case (they can press charges if the charge warrents it) at that point it's made public knowledge and unless specifically barred by a judge the identities are not witheld

some of you are borderline mysoginists. bitterly so

No, the problem is the the accused man can be named by the media before a verdict is given. In quite a few cases the man has been completely innocent, but during the trial the mans face is plastered all over the media. The media should only be allowed to name the man if he is found guilty, and if the women if found to have been making false charges then she should be named. Why should she get complete anonymity no matter what and he should not. What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

For example this guy was innocent, but he had is name dragged though the mud
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-woman-drunk-remember-But-dragged-mud.html

 

[repiV]

Oh please, it's blatent discrimination against an entire gender based on the idea that every woman will prefer children over a career.

What is blatant discrimination against an entire gender? The best person will get the job. In aggressive, high-flying careers, that person is far more likely to be a man than a woman.

The only blatant discrimination against an entire gender in the workplace is against men, a form of discrimination that is both accepted and legal - by recruiting women preferentially even if they are the less suitable candidate. Why do you not seem to care about that injustice?

No better example of "positive discrimination" than Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and the other vile harpies that make up Blair's babes - completely incompetent, utterly detestable, and in the positions they are in purely because they are women.

This equalities bill thing is total and utter nonsense, they're not even complaining about women getting paid a lower wage for the same job, they're complaining that the average wage that women in a company earn is lower than the average for the men. NO SHIT. What do they want, £25,000 a year for cleaners and data entry staff, and huge paycuts for salespeople and managers? Or do they want to force companies to promote their female cleaners and data entry staff into jobs they're utterly incapable of doing, just to make everyone feel better?

A very, very insiduous line of reasoning we're on here. I'm all for equality, but equality involves equal treatment for the same input. A year's paid maternity leave is NOT equality. Paying women more than they're worth just because they're women is NOT equality. Favouring female candidates is NOT equality. Having lesser fitness requirements for women in the military is NOT equality.

The glass ceiling is a real issue in almost all lines of work so even if your amateur psychology is accurate with regards to high end corporate CEOs and the like it does nothing to excuse the massive amount of sexual discrimination that exists.

Just because you say it happens, doesn't make it so.

 

[CptStern]

No, the problem is the the accused man can be named by the media before a verdict is given. In quite a few cases the man has been completely innocent, but during the trial the mans face is plastered all over the media. The media should only be allowed to name the man if he is found guilty, and if the women if found to have been making false charges then she should be named. Why should she get complete anonymity no matter what and he should not. What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

where does it say the victem gets anonimity? her name is right there on the document were the charges agaisnt the perp are. Anyways you're complaining that a privately owned company doesnt have scruples in posting information and that the government should do something about it. however freedom of the press covers this and unless there's slander involved the government has no jurisdiction

For example this guy was innocent, but he had is name dragged though the mud
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-woman-drunk-remember-But-dragged-mud.html

this is one case where the judge gave the victem anonimity because a. the subject of consent while drunk was brought up as evidence. and b. she's a lawyer; most likely she pushed the motion to the judge to protect her career. anyways do yourself a favour and stop reading such alarmist crap as the dailymail. which I find painfully ironic because the dailymail is exactly the alarmist media types you are complaining about

 

[PimpinPenguin]

this is one case where the judge gave the victem anonimity because a. the subject of consent while drunk was brought up as evidence. and b. she's a lawyer; most likely she pushed the motion to the judge to protect her career. anyways do yourself a favour and stop reading such alarmist crap as the dailymail. which I find painfully ironic because the dailymail is exactly the alarmist media types you are complaining about

It's not just one case. All rape victims are allowed to have complete anonymity no matter what. Yes, some choose not to take it, but alot who have made false allegations have chose to have anonymity. The Daily mail example was just one of many. The reason i used it was because it was the most recent, but there have been many reported on the BBC news with exactly the same complaints. A women falsely accusing an ex-boyfriend of rape for revenge, causing his name to be dragged though the mud and causing him to lose his job, while she keeps her anonymity. The point i was trying to make is that if a Women who makes a rape charge are allowed to have anonymity then the accused should be give anonymity until he is found guilty. Why give the Women a choice, but not the man?