I understand the Mail’s point on this one. After what the Gurkha’s did for us, spitting on them and telling them to fuck off is a huge insult, particularly with the rules for “ordinary” asylum seekers being what they are.
The problem for me is the campaign leader is a newspaper that absolutely hates all immigrants no matter how good their claim is. According to the Mail immigrants are dirty, scabby, knife weilding, swan killing bastards.
So to have them campaign for the Gurkhas is admirable (and I wish they’d spend more time correcting actual wrongs instead of exaggerating non-problems to whinge about) but it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t bothered about the Gurkha’s themselves, they just wanna say “we got one over the government” and sell some more papers.
Yeah they wouldn’t run a campaign supporting people who are fighting for asylum due to sexuality or political belief being a criminal offence in their home country.
“So to have them campaign for the Gurkhas is admirable… but it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t bothered about the Gurkha’s themselves, they just wanna say “we got one over the government” and sell some more papers.” – Chris
And what I find lothesome is that these papers are all of a sudden jumping on this campain bandwagon, ignoring that fact that Private Eye have been reporting on this for a few years now.
Femail (from my memories of my Mum reading it in my Dad’s “Mail”) is bloody terrifying, and is aimed largely at those who thing that it’s still 1954, but ladies fashions and consumer goods have really taken off. Perhaps this demographic is finally fading?
I see this as one of those superficially popular ideas for the likes of the DM
(despite the obvious hypocrisy).
It’s interesting that even though this Gov has changed the rules for Gurkhas from 1997 on they want retrospective legislation (usually something they abhor) to provide for those unable to benefit before the 1997 cut-off.
Not a word about their tory heros Thatcher or Major who refused to do a damned thing.
Naturally their was no hue & cry about Thatcher (or Major) being traitorous to ‘our’ beloved Gurkhas back then.
Back then it was considered perfectly right and proper to point out that any Gurkha completing his service (which provided a very good salary compared to what was available ‘at home’) would get a pension (also providing a living standard well above that which would ever have been available at home).
Still, why pass up the opportunity to take a dig at McBruun et al?
>Does anyone agree that if the government was supporting this the mail would be opposing it?
I doubt that. If it was any other case of foreigners being given the right to live here permanenty then the Mail would almost-certainly oppose it but the Gurkha’s have fought in the British army for British interests and that would make rewarding them very difficult for the Mail given their tendency to lionize the armed forces. If Brown had supported the Gurkha’s the Mail would have been more likely to try and undermine his position, try and find ways of accusing him of hypocrisy or taken examples of other foreign nationals given residence and tried to insinuate that they were taking resources more-suited to the Gurkhas and attacked Labour’s “duplicity”.
The hypocrisy of the Mail in wanting lots of tanned fellows to migrate here.
But they’re tanned fellows who’ve killed lots of Johnny Woggos. That virtually makes them honorary Britons, after all.
AND GUESS WHO’S PAYING FOR THEM.
Would this Hello deal only exist because Hello is struggling not to say Goodbye.
I notice they’re advertising Femail quite a bit. Why?
For once a mail headline I agree with. But where is this sympathy in other migration stories?
I understand the Mail’s point on this one. After what the Gurkha’s did for us, spitting on them and telling them to fuck off is a huge insult, particularly with the rules for “ordinary” asylum seekers being what they are.
The problem for me is the campaign leader is a newspaper that absolutely hates all immigrants no matter how good their claim is. According to the Mail immigrants are dirty, scabby, knife weilding, swan killing bastards.
So to have them campaign for the Gurkhas is admirable (and I wish they’d spend more time correcting actual wrongs instead of exaggerating non-problems to whinge about) but it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t bothered about the Gurkha’s themselves, they just wanna say “we got one over the government” and sell some more papers.
Yeah they wouldn’t run a campaign supporting people who are fighting for asylum due to sexuality or political belief being a criminal offence in their home country.
I must say, w*nk corner is lacking.
“I notice they’re advertising Femail quite a bit. Why?”
Maybe they’ve noticed women can have jobs now and hence spend money.
“So to have them campaign for the Gurkhas is admirable… but it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t bothered about the Gurkha’s themselves, they just wanna say “we got one over the government” and sell some more papers.” – Chris
And what I find lothesome is that these papers are all of a sudden jumping on this campain bandwagon, ignoring that fact that Private Eye have been reporting on this for a few years now.
@Sarah , yeah I’ve noticed that.
Femail (from my memories of my Mum reading it in my Dad’s “Mail”) is bloody terrifying, and is aimed largely at those who thing that it’s still 1954, but ladies fashions and consumer goods have really taken off. Perhaps this demographic is finally fading?
I see this as one of those superficially popular ideas for the likes of the DM
(despite the obvious hypocrisy).
It’s interesting that even though this Gov has changed the rules for Gurkhas from 1997 on they want retrospective legislation (usually something they abhor) to provide for those unable to benefit before the 1997 cut-off.
Not a word about their tory heros Thatcher or Major who refused to do a damned thing.
Naturally their was no hue & cry about Thatcher (or Major) being traitorous to ‘our’ beloved Gurkhas back then.
Back then it was considered perfectly right and proper to point out that any Gurkha completing his service (which provided a very good salary compared to what was available ‘at home’) would get a pension (also providing a living standard well above that which would ever have been available at home).
Still, why pass up the opportunity to take a dig at McBruun et al?
“Now let them stay!”
although i kind of agree with the Mail on this one, they still sound like a whining toddler.
Does anyone agree that if the government was supporting this the mail would be opposing it?
>Does anyone agree that if the government was supporting this the mail would be opposing it?
I doubt that. If it was any other case of foreigners being given the right to live here permanenty then the Mail would almost-certainly oppose it but the Gurkha’s have fought in the British army for British interests and that would make rewarding them very difficult for the Mail given their tendency to lionize the armed forces. If Brown had supported the Gurkha’s the Mail would have been more likely to try and undermine his position, try and find ways of accusing him of hypocrisy or taken examples of other foreign nationals given residence and tried to insinuate that they were taking resources more-suited to the Gurkhas and attacked Labour’s “duplicity”.
“…that would make rewarding them very difficult for the Mail…”
“very difficult for the Mail to oppose”, that should have read.
There’s no need to shout, Daily Mail, I’m not deaf. I said I’m not deaf. Not deaf! Oh, forget it.
Loved the story about Morrison’s howler riddled spelling blocks today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1177129/Riddled-howlers-supermarket-alphabet-blocks-designed-help-children-spell.html
So just like the DM’s own howler earlier today in this headline
Mexico confirms swine flu is on the wain, but health officials warn against complacency
Must be that DM hacks attended the Morrison’s school of journalism!
Here’s the url of that one, been fixed now, I see!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1177108/Mexico-confirms-swine-flu-wain-health-officials-warn-complacency.html?ITO...
“Does anyone agree that if the government was supporting this the mail would be opposing it?”
Absolutely – and this would have been natural Mail territory. We don’t want the filthy fuzzy-wuzzies here, thankyou very much.