Pasports .....

This story cropped up in the media this week. Not so much media coverage mind you as when it comes to coverage of deportees the media would rather follow the plight of someone who has far less reason to remain here, just as the goverment hands out residency to people who have far less reason to be here. I am publishing this story to highlight their cause and wish them well in their fight against British injustice.



The wife of a soldier faces deportation as her husband prepares to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Canadian-born Samantha Crozier, 23, has been given notice by the Home Office to leave the country by April 30, when her temporary visa expires after her application for British citizenship was refused.
Mrs Crozier, who has a British mother, Antoinette, claims their children, Ethan, two, and Celeb, one, will have to be put into care while her husband, Lance Corporal Andrew Crozier, is sent on a tour of duty after he completes training. Mrs Crozier says she has spoken to 15 other Army wives facing deportation. Mrs Crozier moved to England with her husband, also 23, in October last year. She said MoD officials failed to tell her of the complicated procedure to become a British citizen.
Ethan and Celeb, who were born while her husband was posted to Osnabruck, Germany, were awarded full British citizenship and Mrs Crozier applied for a Status Stamp at the British embassy in Dusseldorf. The stamp allowed her to stay in Germany at the UK base for five years. She was stopped at Newcastle ferry port by Customs and Excise and advised to apply for citizenship. She said she was told that because she her husband was born in Northumberland her application would be successful. However, Mrs Crozier received a letter last month, the day after her birthday, from the Home Office rejecting her application.
It read: "You have applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of your marriage to Andrew Douglas Crozier. "However, the immigration rules direct that a person seeking such leave is to be refused if they do not meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules. "This includes that the applicant has limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom other than where that leave is of six months duration or less. On 30 October 2007 you were granted limited leave to enter as a visitor for a period of six months from 30 October 2007 until 30 April 2008 therefore you do not meet the requirements. "You are not entitled to appeal this decision."

Mrs Crozier said : "I think it is disgraceful. I came here to start a new life with my husband and my two wonderful little boys. My husband is very patriotic and would gladly fight for his country but it seems his country won't fight for him."

Full story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/17/nsoldier217.xml

..... and pensions

The plight of the Gurkhas was highlighted on this site last August and once again they are in the media for being undervalued for their contributions and sacrifices. Somebody replied to the post in August pointing out that Gurkhas do not sign up under the same conditions as British counterparts and know this full well also at the time of enlistment. Valid point but none the less I am sure most will agree that the current discrimination against them is nothing short of disgraceful.





About 2,000 Gurkhas watched today as 50 veterans outside Parliament handed back their military medals in protest against the Government's "immoral discrimination" against them. Dressed in regimental ties and their distinctive khaki hats, the retired soldiers protested against "disgracefully low" pensions and called for the right to live in Britain in return for years of fighting alongside British troops.
Nepalese Gurkhas have served in the Army for nearly 200 years, but receive a monthly pension of about £131 - compared to about £1,000 for their British counterparts.
"Our pension is not even enough for life in Nepal. In Britain, it is incredibly low," said Dewan Gurung, 46, who served in the army for 23 years including tours in Bosnia, Sierra Leone and the Falkland islands. "Our pension is an insult, a disgrace," added Arkumar Gurung, 42, who saw duty in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 during a 19-year career. "I gave half my active life for Britain. We deserve more."

They handed their medals over to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, who called their plight a "national disgrace".
During Commons question time, Mr Clegg asked Gordon Brown why Gurkhas who served in the Army after 1997 were "worthy" of British citizenship, but those who served before were not.
Holding up one of the medals, Mr Clegg pressed the Prime Minister: "Do you know what it means for a loyal British soldier to give up a medal that he won for his long years' of service to this country?"

Damber Ghaly, who handed back six medals - including an MBE - after 28 years in the Gurkhas, said: "It is very sad and emotional but I think it is the only thing we can do." The 50-year-old coordinated the protest for the Gurkhas United Front. "I served in Kosovo and Bosnia where I was in charge of my troops," he said. "It is not a case of being angry but we feel very disappointed and let down."
Many of the retired veterans who today handed back their Long Service and Good Conduct medals have made their home near their old base in Folkestone, Kent.

Full story at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/ngurkha119.xml

And support them at http://www.vchero.co.uk/

MPs reject EU treaty referendum

Well we all know the liebour party are hellbent on destroying this country and yes, once again they have proved they do not care about the people of this land or the promise they made to hold a referendum before signing away more power to the eu thus changing this, our country, forever. I hope to see liebour mp's passing through traitors gate soon, before it is too late.




MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty. The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the treaty, signed by EU leaders last December. The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 248 - a margin of 63. The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the treaty, signed by EU leaders last December.

All EU parliaments must ratify the treaty before it can come into force. The only country which has committed to a referendum is Ireland. The three main UK political parties promised a public vote on the EU Constitution in their 2005 general election manifestos. But the constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates later that year. The Lisbon Treaty was drawn up to replace it.

The government and the Lib Dems say the treaty does not have constitutional implications, so a referendum on it is not needed. The government says most changes are minor and procedural and it has secured "opt-outs" where necessary. But the Conservatives, some Labour and Lib Dem MPs and the UK Independence Party among others, say that it is effectively the constitution under a different name - so there should be a referendum.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: "This treaty will now go to the House of Lords.
"It is convention that the House of Lords does not stand in the way of manifesto commitments. We hope that in this case the Lords will hold the government to their manifesto commitment.

Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7277644.stm