Joanna Lumley is making a mistake on this issue, something typical of her class, seeking rights for people in Nepal rather than poor people in her own country, she wouldn’t deign to enter the houses of some poor people in this country without corpsing in disgust internally, at the way they live. Certainly the ghurka’s are some of the more deserving immigrants perhaps, but to be honest, from the perspective of most nepalese village persons, they already hit the jackpot, by becoming a ghurka in the first place, it is the ghurka’s who own the big houses and business’s in these villages. This retrospective act is just the older gurkha’s trying to equalise their rights, upto a par with the rights which more recent ghurkas already have, so the ghurkas pre a certain date can also enter this country. To be honest, a simpler solution, might just be to axe the ghurka regiment as a whole. People emigrate for their own advantage, im sure they perceive that being british citizens living in this country, would mean they are better off, which is why they are seeking it.
Violence is a shortcut to getting what you want kids, the upper class are teaching you threatening behavior again as a usefull tool (See Joanna waving a Kukri below kids, how she or the ghurka’s didnt get arrested by new countrywide security about knives is just another example of double standards). Especially if you have a face that the general sheep recognise off the boobtube, ala the 45 pages in google images that represents Joanna’s, almost narcisistic vain belief, in the power that should be rightly attributed by appearance alone, and the self benefiting use of it.
threat of violence is a shortcut : see joanna proves it by waving this bent knife about.
To be honest I remember theyre campaign, for retroactive extended pension rights etc, this is just the latest in demands. To be honest the only reason we would have chose to create a ghurka regiment in the first place, was because it was good value, to have some cheap throat slitting thugs that could scare the enemy in war (‘par example’ theyre reputation in the falklands). Now when the cost of having a ghurka regiment, becomes as expensive as employing british soldiers why would you do it ?
The truth is the ghurkas were undoubteadly created as some kind of devisive favouritism by upper class twits in the divide and rule colonial days of India, as evidenced by spychotic class ramblings on them, like this extract taken from wikipedia page here :
Professor Sir Ralph Turner, MC, who served with the 3rd Queen Alexandra’s Own Gurkha Rifles in the First World War, wrote of Gurkhas:
“ As I write these last words, my thoughts return to you who were my comrades, the stubborn and indomitable peasants of Nepal. Once more I hear the laughter with which you greeted every hardship. Once more I see you in your bivouacs or about your fires, on forced march or in the trenches, now shivering with wet and cold, now scorched by a pitiless and burning sun. Uncomplaining you endure hunger and thirst and wounds; and at the last your unwavering lines disappear into the smoke and wrath of battle. Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.
Praise indeed … but most often perceiving the ghurkas, in some form of class focused patronising way “peasants” etc, “faithful”, what are they equal to shooting dogs ? that we throw at other peoples lines in a war ? Certainly with the whole passage above, the subject of the peice ‘the ghurka’s’ could so easily be substituted as to be about some feudally descended dewey eyed cunt, referring to the passing of his his favourite gundog, last shooting season.
The Ghurkas, were created by people of a certain class, and are the responsibility of people of a certain class, who today still defend the ghurkas rights rather than the natives of this land.
To be honest a few more ghurka more or less … here in the UK, whats it matter? The native lower classes are so culturally overun in london and ‘done for’, it will make little difference. Something I am sure of, these people will not be living next to Joanna Lumley. Not unless the social housing system is that corrupt, but who knows it probably is, least it is if you read those rags, that would get you branded a racist and slapped down for comic effect, before youve even opened your mouth. To be honest im sick of everyones rights, mainly because ive never excercised mine ? Worse they might actually be middle class wealthy enough, just to buy houses outright after all army wages are probably enough, whichever way they increase pressure on housing for the natives of this land.
One way to cut the cost implications of this, Axe the ghurka regiment, and if this ruling proves an expensive decision, thats hopefully what will happen in the long run, to this paid for standing force of foreign projectable violence.
The things I have disliked about this whole escapade is mainly because its being led by some Highly vocal media vanity model from the 60’s, from an upper class colonial internationalist background sticking up for peoples rights abroad, when shes exactly from a class that has shat on, oppressed the disenfranchised natives of this country for years, with general dis-interest of those classes that do not admire or wish to immitate the thinking of her own..
“Joanna Lamond Lumley was born in 1946 in Kashmir, the daughter of Major James Rutherford Lumley, who was serving in the 6th Gurkha Rifles. He had previously married Thya Rose Weir in 1941, during the Second World War, and after Indian independence in 1949 Major Lumley brought his family back to Britain to settle down to provincial life in Kent.”
The Lumleys are a military family through and through, serving with distinction at officer class from the middle of the 19th century. They also provided clergymen, curates and rectors. Definitely upper middle class.”
quotes from the daily telegraph article here
“provincial life” god that sounds pleasant ? beats … my going to 12 schools living in 16 homes, well as we can see from the quote above joanna’s family has big history associated military colonial India, her father being in the Ghurka’s, and not in a foot soldier capacity ;) probably helped form and expand their role or something. Her interest … I doubt could be more vested, as she probably feels some sense of family obligation in this manner especially with her patronage role, but that obligation mainly stems from her pre-decedents choices and decisions, how a few egotistical decisions can practically roll on for eternity.
And joanna is not going to be around to pick up the bill in the future, like all the shoddy egits that seem to have power and influence in the current times, 20 years give it ? 85 maybe ? nah probably 95 with her money privilege and sex to account for her, god how awful, and she will probably get more histrionic as she goes along.
Perhaps when shes 80 she’ll marry a ghurka veteran or something that would be amusing.