I am so annoyed at the decision of this so called caring Labour government .
The treatment of these ex-serviceman and their families is beyond belief.
I have personally served in the Army with these very loyal and dedicated soldiers.
As has been stated by Joanna Lumley the new criteria can not be made by the majority of Gurkha's, so is a total waste of time and effort in getting this issue resolved and painstakingly slow.
Unless you are a convicted terrorist, criminal or any other piece of human waste and flotsam that ends up on our shores citing breaches of Human rights you can forget fair treatment.
These people have laid down their lives for this country for over 200 years and that's the thanks they get.
The sooner this dire government gets kicked out of office the better.
Fury over Gurkha settlement plan
Campaigners have reacted with anger to new rules on the eligibility of Gurkha veterans to live in the UK.
The Home Office said that new rules would allow about 4,300 more to settle, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign said it would be just 100.
Actress Joanna Lumley, a campaigner for the Gurkhas, said the announcement made her "ashamed of our administration".
Immigration Minister Phil Woolas denied he had betrayed the Gurkhas, adding: "This improves the situation."
He said: "It has never been the case that all Gurkhas pre-1997 were to be allowed to stay in the country. With their dependents you could be looking at 100,000 people.
"It's simply not true that we have betrayed the Gurkhas. When people read the guidelines they will see the sense of them."
In September 2008, the High Court ruled that immigration rules denying Gurkhas who retired before 1997 - about 36,000 - an automatic right to stay in the UK were unlawful.
Peter Carroll, from the Gurkha Justice Campaign, said the fight to allow them to stay in this country would continue with renewed vigour.
He added: "The one group of people that has never let this country down has been let down today in a manner which is truly appalling."
David Enwright, a solicitor representing the Gurkhas, said: "This government, Mr Woolas, should hang their head in shame so low that their forehead should touch their boots.
"This is a disgrace and a betrayal of our armed forces and our veterans."
Dhan Gurung, the first ex-Gurkha to be elected as a councillor in the UK, said the announcement was "insulting to loyal Gurkhas".
He added: "If they want Gurkha soldiers, they should treat them equally."
Gurkhas have been part of the Army for almost 200 years and are hand-picked from a fiercely-contested recruitment contest in Nepal to win the right to join.
They have seen combat all over the world, with 200,000 having fought in the two world wars and 45,000 believed to have lost their lives fighting for Britain.
The regiment moved its main base from Hong Kong to the UK in 1997 and the government had argued that Gurkhas discharged before that date were unlikely to have strong residential ties with the UK.
That meant those who wanted to settle in the UK had to apply for British residency and could be refused and deported.
Mr Woolas outlined the eligibility criteria in a written ministerial statement. Gurkhas and their families will be allowed to stay in the UK if they meet at least one of five requirements.
These are three years of continuous residence in the UK, close family in the country, 20 or more years of service, a level one to three bravery award, and a serious medical condition caused or aggravated by service.
Alternatively, veterans can gain residency if they meet at least two of an additional set of three criteria.
These are having been awarded an MoD disability pension but no longer having a chronic condition, having been mentioned in dispatches, and 10 years' service or a campaign medal.
But Ms Lumley, whose father served with the Gurkhas, said most Gurkhas would not have been allowed to stay in the UK for three years or have gained a bravery award.
She added that only officers would have achieved 20 years of service, and that it would be near-impossible for troops who served in the 1950s and 1960s to prove that their medical conditions were caused by their time in the forces.
"They've given five bullet points that virtually cannot be met by the ordinary Gurkha soldier," she said.
"It is so obvious that the treatment of the Gurkhas has been a huge injustice," she said.
"To treat them like this is despicable."
In September, Mr Justice Blake ruled that instructions given by the Home Office to immigration officials were unlawful and needed urgent revision.
He said the Gurkhas' long service, conspicuous acts of bravery and loyalty to the Crown all pointed to a "moral debt of honour" and gratitude felt by British people.
The government promised to revise its guidance, but in March 2009, the Gurkhas returned to the High Court to try and enforce the ruling.