Trevron73. What I meant is that you have my sympathy regardless of your colour or your wife's. The immigration process is not clear enough,straightforward enough or operated properly. As a result it takes too long and often leads to the wrong decisions being made.
Forget how you write - it doesn't matter.
J
Still no answer on the Hansard question ????
To be fair I knew that one too, but I agree with your general point about irrelevant questions so didn't bother trying to contradict you.
They tend to believe all immigrants should have a compulsory tattoo of Winston Churchill on their arse,
Sometimes smoking a cigar?
I think I get what trevron is saying. As a white man married to a white American I had to go through the distress of getting her a visa against a sea of changing laws, systematic bigotry on the part of the state, mixed messages from the law and enormous fees.
I get people asking me all the time why we had to go through all that. They all say "but you're married, isn't it automatic". When they are told that it isn't many of them justify it by saying that there must be a way to stop people from Asia or Africa marrying and bringing in whoever they like, implying it should be automatic for white British people. A lot of both lower and middle class British people say this to me, and it's exactly why the system is how it is - the government knows that the swivel eyed loons are a big vote and to secure it they must be seen to be doing something to keep people with coloured skin out of the country.
(fortunately I know what Hansard is too, but I dread to think what questions will be in when we get to the test)
there is also the strange rule that an EU national can bring their [none EU] spouses here but a UK national cannot not
Forget what it is called but some UK nationals and spouses are just going to other EU countries for a period and then returning home and claiming the same rights
Odd as I assumed your spouse just automatically could stay here with you. I assume the marriage of convenience will be a factor but I assume it is a tiny % of all marriages
Seems odd your kids can but not your spouse.
A lot of both lower and middle class British people say this to me, and it's exactly why the system is how it is - the government knows that the swivel eyed loons are a big vote and to secure it they must be seen to be doing something to keep people with coloured skin out of the country.
"Lower and middle class". FFS. What are you from the 1800's or something?
And I make both my points being myself
It'd be really confusing if you made your points as someone else. 😉
Poland didn't exist at that time, but it was the answer in the book...
Poland has existed for many hundreds of years, but it hasnt' always been a sovereign state. It had an empire once too.
And I know what Hansard is 🙂
"Lower and middle class". FFS. What are you from the 1800's or something?
Because of course we all now live in a classless society - a bus driver living in rented housing association property is in the same social class as an Eton educated banker living in Chipping Norton.
We're all in it together.
FFS indeed.
The classless society idea isn't meant to imply that we all end up with the same socio-economic profile or background. It means that we aren't constrained to any particular class by our birth. Which is why people can be middle class without being rich. That never used to be the case.
Of course we aren't there yet, if we ever will be, because attitudes are strongly inherited (and I don't mean genetically). However there are bankers, politicians and rich lawyers and so on whose parents worked in factories or shops. This is a good thing and shows that class definitions are not what they once were.
No molgrips, that's your own personal definition to suit your own personal agenda.
[u]Irrespective of whether social mobility is now greater than it once was[/u], we live in a society in which people belong to different social classes.
There are of course plenty of people, invariably the "winners" in our class based society (and the hopelessly gullible and naive) who would rather pretend that there are now no longer any class distinctions.
You wouldn't expect the likes of David Cameron to openly admit that the British class system is still very much a reality. Specially when he comes out with the "we're all in this together" obvious bollocks.
To suggest that class distinctions were abolished 200 years ago, as a previous poster has, is quite frankly ridiculous.
It means that we aren't constrained to any particular class by our birth. Which is why people can be middle class without being rich. That never used to be the case
It was always thus - tube drivers earn more than many middle class folk and I assume did miners and sewage workers 40 years ago.
To suggest class is not an issue when we have an eton educated PM with a hereditary titled individual as Chancellor is ridiculous
Of course we want to think or present social mobility as the cornerstone of our society - because they are not as stupid as say it is not a meritocracy and that we should know our place.
It i snot true though.
I haven't lived in the UK for most of my life but scored 75% in a practice test (a pass). I didn't know the names of the forts of Hadrian's wall for example.
The words 'Britain', 'British Isles' or 'British', however, are used in this test to refer to everyone in
(Choose any 4 answers)
England
The Isle of Man
Scotland
Wales
Channel Islands
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
I reckon the answer given to this test is misleading as Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom but not Great Britain. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
To suggest that class distinctions were abolished 200 years ago, as a previous poster has, is quite frankly ridiculous.
To read this from my post is, quite frankly ridiculous.
I'm merely making the point that to infer class has a bearing on a persons intellectual capacity is, frankly ridiculous.
Apology accepted.
I'm merely making the point that to infer class has a bearing on a persons intellectual capacity is, frankly ridiculous.
No you didn't.
If [b][i]you meant[/i][/b] to make that point then that's something completely different - but you didn't make it.
You said : [i]"Lower and middle class". FFS. What are you from the 1800's or something? [/i] That's all you said.
Lower and middle class in quotations followed by FFS and What are you from the 1800's or something? clearly implies that you are challenging the term lower and middle class.
I suggest that it might be helpful in the future if you learn to express yourself better 💡
And btw class does have a bearing on a person's intellectual capacity, there's nothing "ridiculous" about it. So you're wrong on that count too 🙂
The words 'Britain', 'British Isles' or 'British', however, are used in this test to refer to everyone in
(Choose any 4 answers)
England
The Isle of Man
Scotland
Wales
Channel Islands
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
I reckon the answer given to this test is misleading as Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom but not Great Britain. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
It all gets very muddy as the "UK" is a political term and "British Isles" is a geographical one - so the British Isles includes Ireland (north and south) regardless of the nationality of the people on those islands as a description of a landmass. But the "British[u] Islands[/u]" include NI as if it was an island but excludes ROI. And "Great Britain" doesn't include Ireland at all (although in sporting terms Team GB does include Northern Ireland). But we use all of those terms interchangeably as if they mean the same thing.
[img] 
[/img]
That confirms the answer in the test is wrong, if NI is a correct response the Channel Islands must be too but was marked wrong.
The question does say
The words 'Britain', 'British Isles' or 'British', however, [b]are used in this test[/b] to refer to everyone in...
So they are apparently asking you about their own definition of "British" that they have just made up for this test, rather than the [i]actual[/i] definition as shown in that Venn diagram.
Which seems just a bit pointless!
(But then we don't really have a collective word for "a resident of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales")
Do other countries have these problems with naming themselves? I know that much of Europe is made up of old countries or regions made into modern countries, but they don't seem to care. Maybe it's because of the unequal historical relationship between England and the others. Dutch people don't seem to mind the Netherlands being called Holland, do they?
No, but their Belgian cousins prefer the Flandrian flag over the Belgian one and the Basques consider themselves Basque first and French/Spanish second.
I'm merely making the point that to infer class has a bearing on a persons intellectual capacity is, frankly ridiculous.
But people do it- I assumed that people were going to think "ah, yes, but the people thinking that there needs to be a way to keep the Asians out will be from a poor background with limited education, and won't apply to people from a more privileged background". The neatest way to describe all groups is still by class.
But this is besides the point- the issue here is the UK's ludicrous immigration laws.
Dutch people don't seem to mind the Netherlands being called Holland, do they?
It's technically incorrect but they've given up complaining.
And btw class does have a bearing on a person's intellectual capacity, there's nothing "ridiculous" about it. So you're wrong on that count too
I'm not at all sure how that conclusion has been reached but obviously you're way ahead of me so, we'll done you.
I'll shit up and go back to my stupid corner. Having grown up on a council estate I must be intellectually inferior.
Oh wait. Perhaps you meant that class has a bearing on a persons access to education and may leave them without opportunity because to infer that they would not have the capacity to learn even if presented the opportunity would of course be frankly ridiculous.
Don't know what you're on about mate.
Granted. That's pretty obvious.
Do other countries have these problems with naming themselves?
I think The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macadonia do 🙂 ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute ]looooong wikipedia link[/url] )
Although the Macedonia knows what to call itself and everyone knows what to call Macedonia - except a few bad-tempered Greeks. Mate worked on a base in Afghanistan and said the greek officer spent most of his time writing emails complaining that the Macedonians' vehicles had "Macedonia" painted on them instead of FYROM. Although I suppose if the worst thing an army did in Afghanistan was write some trolling emails, that's probably not too bad a track record.
