Monday, 29 March 2010

You've Gurkha Be Kidding Me, Joanna

Absolutely Fabulous Clueless

Well, well. Once again I probably have a pretty controversial view on something, but no surprise there I suppose, seeing as I have a habit of ruffling people's feathers.

I do not often involve myself in the kind of "topical" tittle-tattle of the day, but what is the point of having a blog if one cannot have a little vent and a poke around from time time? 

I first heard the story about the apology to Joanna Lumley on the BBC Radio news bulletin this afternoon and it still seems to be a major player in the Google News front page, so I thought I would add my two penneth.

It seems, from a fleeting glance at most newspapers and media commentators (which I have seen online this evening) that some MP (Kevan Jones) has felt the pressure to "apologise" to Joanna Lumley for expressing harsh criticism of her Gurkha campaign and the effects it has had since the furore she caused died down.

Firstly, I find this quite bizarre. Am I hearing correctly? An MP, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself, have had to apologise for criticising an actress? The whole premise of that is truly tragic in itself, but this absurdity is only the start. My impression so far is that there has been pressure mounted to try and "embarrass" the minister (and the government) over a sensitive issue, and once again begin preying on peoples emotions in precedence over what is actual reality and what is perhaps entirely justified to be said or suggested.

Are we being governed in this country by celebrities and the reactionary 'populist' press? It seems so. It comes to all parties at the end of their shelf life, the same happened with the tail end of the Tories before Anthony rolled up in Number 10 with his groovy "Cool Britannia" guitar of doom, and now the same media effect happens with the tired Labour party. At first, parties tend to control the agenda and make the news - then it slips to about 50-50, then it seems like the papers are making the policies and creating the "mood music" to society, usually to encourage the 'democatic' switch over from tweedle-dee to tweedle-dumb.

I cannot find what exactly the MP said first time around, only certain snippets of it for which he feels required to apologise for. So, for the sake of my piece, I will just recall how things were when Joanna Lumley made the grandstanding on this issue.

At the time, Joanna Lumley was (without doubt) riding a very emotional campaign when she stuck her bib into immigration policy. Not only has this country got a proud reverence for the brave and gallant efforts of the Gurkha soldiers from our military past, but on the reverse side, these kinds of hysteria led campaigns splashed around Nepal and around the rest of the world media can do nothing else but whip these people into a frenzy and let them come to expect a life which cannot be offered.

Whilst Lumley swanned around with her heart on her sleeve, with full puppy-dog eyes at every encounter with a family of a Gurkha or a soldier directly, she must have been blinded or numbed into stupidity to simply forget the state of affairs in which Britain finds itself.

As she went to Nepal, apparently adorned in symbolic marigold necklace of the Everest kingdom for media effect,  her efforts could do little else than encourage and get the hopes up of a whole raft of potential "new lives" in Britain. Who better to do it too, than a posh, white, well spoken and typically "stereotype" British woman. The Gurkha's are in a for a real shock when they arrive here, that's for sure, for Joanna Lumley is far detached from what "modern Britain" is like today.

According to reports at the time, Joanna stepped from her plane in Kathmandu to greet crowds of former Gurkhas (and their families) who were waving placards in the monsoon rain, hailing the actress a 'goddess' and 'daughter' of their poor country. Joanna, however, states today that she had not built up their expectations with her campaign!

I would hardly think being greeted in monsoon rain and being given a title of goddess and adoptive daughter of Nepal would be borne out of a low-key expectation. The whole world knows how soft we are here, they know what comes with residency here, they all believe the streets are paved with gold and cross continents to try their luck here. Joanna undoubtedly did not tell them much to the contrary either.

Joanna, who must think Britain is the still the same as when the Avengers was being filmed, seems to have been unburdened of the knowledge regarding the horrific state of immigration and asylum in this country and the absurd state of affairs in which we find ourselves. Therefore, she did the equivalent of installing a water feature on the top of an already wildly leaking building's roof. It looks pretty, but it is a total liability and can only cause more destruction when the roof finally collapses.

Without care nor consideration to the actual 'feasibility' of her good hearted gesture (a typical "leftwing" trait of emotion triumphing over logic), without comprehending the massive waiting lists for houses spiralling into hundreds of thousands on a back-log, without realising charities for immigrants and asylum seekers (and all the surrounding welfare system) being wholly overburdened under the strain from the third world colonisers which have swamped the country, being seemingly unaware of immigrants living in makeshift tents in peoples gardens, hospitals having to turn patients away through being overburdened, national financial collapse, and all manners of absurdities which are not fit for a first world nation - she decides it to be a good idea to welcome them to come into this chaos.

So, what do we allegedly find to be happening since her campaign finished?

We find peasant farmers who are ex-army coming to Britain expecting care, housing, facilities, and to be looked after. We find them wishing to bring their extended families in a new form of chain migration for a "better life".

We owe the extended families nothing. Citizenship to this country for a "better life" is not a right nor a duty for us to even consider. Half of the world is poorer and more desperate than we are, just where will this concept of a "better life" end? When we are collapsed into a failed third world country of violence, conflict, broken services - and other places are suddenly "better" than we are?

However, what these men are getting is entirely different from what their perceptions would have been.

They are arriving penniless, clutching suitcases, and sat crying on the pavement because they do not know what to do. They are found living in poxy and mouldy bedsits which even the Romanians and various other chancer's are too scared to live in.

They arrive, without being able to speak or write English. Most cannot even read and write their native Nepalese. They have nil chance of a job because of these factors and because of the massive job losses in the recession - not to mention the other 3 Million immigrants and unaccounted for illegals which have entered this country in the last decade.

Many have sold their farms, their fields, their livelyhoods to take a chance here. Many have put themselves into dangerous loans and debts with unscrupulous lenders.  They are now trapped, and many have nothing to go back to, not that they could afford to buy a plane ticket home anyway.

The family back home now have no livelihood, they are expecting the newly arrived immigrant to Britain to work the system and send money home so they can afford the flights and the visas too. They are thus subjected to more poverty at home because they have lost the main workers and their means of a living. Loan sharks are awaiting some recompense from some of these families in the meantime.

Charity groups here are begging desperately for help from the government for funds, whilst the usual corruption ensues over in Nepal and in the UK, where the immigration "industry" puts its fangs into the situation. They shaft immigrants for profit (and keeping their own jobs) and then go on to have the nerve to "feel good" about their settlement here.

The Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation (GAESO) in Nepal was reported as charging each veteran £500 in cash for UK visa advice whilst weaving rosy tales about life here. The numbers of people wishing to come as a result of this "Union" organisation jumped significantly. At £500 per case, I am sure it is a nice little earner for somebody!.

Solicitors from Howe & Co, a top firm of London human rights lawyers linked to GAESO were reported as receiving a legal aid fee of up to £500 from the British Government (ie, us) for each old soldier and each family member they help fill in a UK visa application - proving a gold mine for all concerned  -  apart from the Gurkhas themselves

Rushmoor Council in Hampshire had already admitted that 'several thousand' may be in the area in the first few months of the doors being opened, all still awaiting state support. It is total lunacy.

An ex-Gurkha and former farmer was reported as saying "Britain is a developed country where I deserve free housing and a pension. GAESO told me they were my rights. I have not received a penny" 

Quite. Only, I disagree they are your "rights"

Another said: "They {GAESO} said that the money for housing and living costs would arrive immediately. I was told not to worry. I would be able to send for my family and we would all love the UK.'


My own view is this: 

If it was still the late 1940's and early 1950's and it was a limited offer to soley the old (and limited numbers of dependents to care for them), I would be okay with Joanna's campaign.  We could have managed, we could have taken in and absorbed them.  If anyone deserves it, some of these men do. I have no qualms about that.

However, seeing as it is not the late 1940's any more and we have seen our country transformed from a country which was promised to be fit for kings after the war into a cess pit of chaos and degeneracy, one of multiracial and multi religious strife, and one embarking on a process of ethnically annihilating the indigenous British, I reserve the right to take exception to it and its long term effects - irrespective of the valour and bravery of the Gurkha.

Perhaps if we were operating some kind of 1:1000 strategy I might be more lenient. That is, 1 Gurkha IN, 1000 Somalians/Muslims/Pakistani's/etc etc OUT.  As Nick Griffin said, he would gladly swap one group for the other. Of course, I would go further.

Hell, I would even give them the repatriation money which is already offered by the government, and send the 1000 leaving to Nepal in some freaky immigrant exchange programme. I mean, how can we be so selfish to hoard all these super-immigrants to ourselves. Surely, their "dynamism" and "hard work ethic" will pull up the poor Nepal in no time!. Win Win situation.

Can you sense the sarcasm? I surely hope so.

Failing that, I think the repatriation money should be used to send these poor people back home, and let them build up Nepal as they should be doing. I would expect that money would make them quite rich over there, whilst it would not do hardly anything here. Obviously the door would have to be closed to this country first.

As for Joanna Lumley, she should be disgusted with herself and what she has set into place.

She should shoulder some of the blame for the plight of these people coming here, not start expecting the prime minister and MPs to cower and apologise for stating some rather uncomfortable facts about what her campaign has caused.

Does anybody know if her (no doubt massive) house is packed with peasant farm workers? Somehow, I doubt it will be.

Will she start a "repatriation of the third world colonisers" campaign with such similar zeal, to close the door and remove immigrants to help ease the burden she has put on the Gurkha's and on this country? I doubt it, just like you will not find a gipsy site camped in the back row of Downing Street, or Lithuanians lurking in Peter Hains' coal shed having a kip.

I know it is hardly a popular view to take, but to be honest, I am past caring. We have to toughen up a bit, or we are only serving to dig our own future peoples' graves.

{edited, picture failure}

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you, BA. I think the agenda is three-fold:

    1) Open up another avenue for mass-immigration.

    2) Imply to tabloid readers that:

    a) our immigration policy is too strict, as it doesn't permit entry to people who have fought for the country.

    b) that some immigrants are loyal and proud of Britain - no mention of mercenaries.

    3) Help recruit more Gurkhas to die in our wars.