Shameful… and demeaning to the reputation of Britain

Tul Bahadur Pun is a Gurkha. Tul Bahadur Pun fought for Britain in WW II against the Japanese. Tul Bahadur Pun won the Victoria Cross. Tul Bahadur Pun is 84, lives on a pension of £134 a month, and has to be carried in a basket by several men – a day’s walk, to collect medication to keep him alive.
Tul Bahadur Pun has been refused entry to Britain because he is not able to demonstrate “strong ties with the UK”

This is truly shaming. I hardly need state the obvious that we are about to give amnesty to a whole host of illegal immigrants. If winning a VC while fighting for this country is not a strong tie – what is?

A man who has fought for the British Army deserves to have the protection of this country. This man served beyond the call of duty. That is why he was awarded the VC.

See Iain Dale’s diary where I found the story. It is worth reading Iain Dale’s diary (and the comments on his post for the range and depth of feeling on this matter) for the full story. Original Story from The Daily mail

Se Also: Musings of a Reactionary Snob | Prisonlawinsideout

The government needs to deal with his honourably – and quickly. We owe a great debt to those who serve in the armed forces – a few years of compassionate support for Tul Bahadur Pun VC is not too much to ask – is it?

Great Britain? Not on this one, I’m afraid… tawdry behaviour. Appalling.


Update saturday 26th May

Detailed comments on this issue in the comments section…

5 thoughts on “Shameful… and demeaning to the reputation of Britain

  1. Yes… I do not read The Mail. It is, however, a worthwhile issue.
    It is also a matter of Law. It is not unreasonable to give a view based on the premise that the official exercised his / her powers ‘to exclude’ by applying the law. Exercising a personal right, which I believe I still have the right to exercise… I take the view that if this is the way the law works in this case, it is a bad law – and therefore is not a law worthy of respect.
    This is not about politics or immigration rules… This is about looking after a man (perhaps a symbol of all who fight in our name at present in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere?) who fought for our country, won a VC, and with many others, those who died and those who lived in WW II, allowed us to keep our country – the country which we are custodians of, and shape today – for our present benefit and the future of those who follow us.
    I am astonished that The Home Office / Foreign Office allowed this decision to exclude to happen in our name. I have no doubt the decision can be ‘justified’ in law. That is the problem with law. All lawyers know the very basic difference between law, morality and justice – because that is what we deal in, whether we be academic, analyst, commentator or practitioner. Law exists, because ‘we’ say it exists – and, without getting into a thousand years of jurisprudential analysis (The Government, ironically, has a pressing problem with the Laws of Russia which prohibit extradition of their nationals to face trial in a foreign country. See: the Attorney-General, and Andrei Lugovoi) – there are times when we have to say that a ‘law’ is not just, is not acceptable and should not be applied.
    If there is a law in this case which has to be applied rigidly (for fear that the entire fabric of the state will collapse) – then… let our politicians know… because, from my very limited understanding of Constitutitonal Law and the workings of Parliament; I have a hunch that those, who are our elected representatives, are able to convene to discuss this matter and act to deal with the matter honourably.
    In the grand scheme of events in the world this is a small issue – but, it is, nevertheless, an important matter of principle and, I feel strongly (not that it matters what I feel), that we should give support to those who have to go to war in our name – whatever the circumstances. It is not a political matter. It is about values – the values of humanity, whatever our politics, to honour and care for those, who have served our country and who are in need of help.
    But hey… what do I know?… I am merely a blogger.

  2. At the risk of incurring a positivist backlash,(and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on jurisprudence) law that is divorced from any kind of morality runs the risk of being — as they say — an ass. While it is right that a distinction be drawn between law and morality generally (particularly religious morality), a law that is not based on basic and common standards of human decency will surely make a mockery of us all! I have no doubt that it is difficult, as a point of legal analysis, to identify what those standards are, but to take the matter to the other extreme is to lose any kind of compassion, honour or indeed common sense upon which the law must be based.

    The sad thing about this saga is that people of this generation fought for Britain because of the values that it stood for. Are we now, in their hour of need, telling them that they were wrong to have done so?

  3. Pingback: » The strange case of Tul Bahadur Pun

  4. I just can not believe that this decision was made by anyone who had the first clue what he was doing. Huge numbers of paper pushers at the Home Office are themselves recent arrivals. Was the guy educated? Could he speak English fluently? Did he even know what a VC was? Was he au fait with the Gurkhas at all?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *