U.K. and Ireland - Confessions of an immigrant: Knowledge of Life in the UK

To accompany the other thread from a journalist's blog, here's another blog about a Swiss national becoming British by naturalisation, surprisingly rant-free IMO.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/02/confessions-of-an-immigrant-knowledge-of-life-in-the-uk/

I normally remain unmoved by blogs, but this one certainly appears to have the ring of truth about it. And I had no idea that there was an alternative date for the Magna Carta. :eek: :p

YQ on BA redemptions is as nothing compared to the fee increases charged by HMG for certain immigration services.
(See what I did there? Tried to mention an on topic detail in an off topic post. ;))

To accompany the other thread from a journalist's blog, here's another blog about a Swiss national becoming British by naturalisation, surprisingly rant-free IMO.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/02/confessions-of-an-immigrant-knowledge-of-life-in-the-uk/

I normally remain unmoved by blogs, but this one certainly appears to have the ring of truth about it. And I had no idea that there was an alternative date for the Magna Carta. :eek: :p

YQ on BA redemptions is as nothing compared to the fee increases charged by HMG for certain immigration services.
(See what I did there? Tried to mention an on topic detail in an off topic post. ;))

Which still has nothing to do with BA. And the comparison is about as reasonable as saying don't complain about beef prices because caviar is much more expensive.

To accompany the other thread from a journalist's blog, here's another blog about a Swiss national becoming British by naturalisation, surprisingly rant-free IMO.

...funniest thing I've ever read about that test is this:

Life in the UK includes a 25-page, 11,000-word introduction to British history written by the late professor Sir Bernard Crick. He defended it from criticism from the Historical Association that it was "a bizarre tour of British history" by saying it was written for immigrants and their language teachers and was not an official history.

Crick also revealed in 2006 that he resisted pressure from the then home secretary, David Blunkett, to include history questions in the test: "I refused, both in principle and on grounds of practicality: could any test for immigrants be devised that 80% of our fellow citizens would not fail?" he said.

Maybe all UK school-leavers should all sit the test? To check its fairness? ;)

I agree the failure rate could be quite high.

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Not sure that helps, but I do accept that 'education' seems a bit different these days.

To accompany the other thread from a journalist's blog, here's another blog about a Swiss national becoming British by naturalisation, surprisingly rant-free IMO.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/02/confessions-of-an-immigrant-knowledge-of-life-in-the-uk/

An excellent article!

Whereas http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/01/uk-migrants-patriotic-citizenship-test?newsfeed=true is just depressing, including the corker:

A Home Office official said: "It's a move away from the old one – stuff on rights, practical info that has little to do with British culture

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Hmm.... I've just checked and it seems my school was founded in 1963.

Ouch.

Hmm.... I've just checked and it seems my school was founded in 1963.

Ouch.
Nothing personal, and in my case a simple case of geography and a scholarship. :D

I just posted that to highlight the enormous disparity in education establishments in the UK … and age doesn't make them any better ;)

The OH's alma mater rates in the top 10 … my old place struggles to be in the top 100 :D

My school was founded in 1979 it transpires, so perhaps that makes me somewhat of a dullard. Still, it could be worse: I can access Wikipedia with sufficient competence to find out said information, so all is not lost! :D

Which still has nothing to do with BA. And the comparison is about as reasonable as saying don't complain about beef prices because caviar is much more expensive.

Is this your first contribution to this forum?

Maybe all UK school-leavers should all sit the test?Maybe all UK school-leavers should sit and pass the test before they're allowed to vote.

My school was founded in 1979 it transpires, so perhaps that makes me somewhat of a dullard. Still, it could be worse: I can access Wikipedia with sufficient competence to find out said information, so all is not lost! :D
The World has changed, has it not?

I was learning Latin before my 11th birthday … why, you may ask, but it gave me a feeling for language. It didn't enhance my ability to de-coke a motorcycle engine or calculate the relevant benefits of Avios v. TPs. That came later :D

Maybe all UK school-leavers should sit and pass the test before they're allowed to vote.

Maybe all MPs should sit the test and if they can't all pass it gets scrapped...? or at least re-written until they can all pass it?! ;)

My wife passed this the year before last. Beforehand I ordered the practice materials online and had them delivered to my work. Passed it round the office and most of my (white, British) colleagues struggled to pass a test!

Goodness - when I got my Brit citizenship back in '95, I filled in a form and the only check after that was when a nice chap from Liverpool called to ask if I had a police record (the answer was no and he said they didn't need to check further). Perhaps the *test* was that I could sufficiently understand "scouse"?

T819, we also learnt Latin at school down in the colonies of NZ... as recently as - oh, maybe not so recently. I keep thinking the '80s were last week.

T8191, we also learnt Latin at school down in the colonies of NZ... as recently as - oh, maybe not so recently. I keep thinking the '80s were last week.

There you go, mate. A decent Colonial ... albeit a young one :D ^

I'm going to have to take that test next year. Wondering if I will learn anything useful or interesting.

I've just checked and it seems my school was founded in 1963.

1798 here. Not bad for a colony, but still a young upstart compared to T8191's :D

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/02/confessions-of-an-immigrant-knowledge-of-life-in-the-uk/

Brilliant . . . still trying to reattach my bottom! :D^

Perhaps the Brits should consider including some form of "interrogation by the locals" as the Swiss do as a part of the naturalisation process. :eek: ;)

I have passed the test last year, became a British citizen in May, and got my British passport yesterday. Anyone who has lived for a few years in the UK and has ever read a paper is able to do 50% of the test, the rest is easily learnt from the book.
While it's true that it contains many errors (but if you buy the unofficial book, it will tell you where the mistakes are), and it's biased towards a Labour ideology, you have to think it's aimed to a very diverse target, to people coming from around the world, with very different customs than ours. For example, one of the questions is "when is Christmas"?. Seems rather obvious to us, but for someone coming from a non-Christian culture and who may have had little contact with people outside his/her circle, it might not be that obvious.
And honestly, on a global scale, the cultural differences between a Swiss and a British are minimal.

Perhaps the Brits should consider including some form of "interrogation by the locals" as the Swiss do as a part of the naturalisation process. :eek: ;)

Don't worry - as a British passport holder you can look forward to "interrogation by the locals" as you meet with the delightful men and women of UK Border Force as you re-enter "your" country!

I'm going to have to take that test next year. Wondering if I will learn anything useful or interesting.


There was an online practice test that I found online for a tenner. 400 questions I think. I'm sure they were from the real test because when I sat it, I finished my questions in about 3 minutes! Wish they gave you a score, not just pass/fail!

I have no objections to taking the test, or swearing alligence to the Queen (given that my birth nation had God Save the Queen as our national anthem during my school years!). I think they thought it would be like the Hollywood versions of the USA when immigrants get their citizenship, all emotional etc but most people came across as just embarrased and wanting to get their certificate. Within 30 minutes of gettng mine I was at the post office sending off for my passport. That came back in 7 days, the quickest part of the whole process!!

I have to say I would be much happier if this stuff was actually going to be taught in British schools.

(My school was founded in 1976 so not the youngest on here. It was in special measures a couple of years ago though, do I get cool points for that?)

The World has changed, has it not?

I was learning Latin before my 11th birthday … why, you may ask

Because back in your day the Romans still had an empire? :D

I agree the failure rate could be quite high.

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Not sure that helps, but I do accept that 'education' seems a bit different these days.

Pah, that's nothing. My school was considered so good it was officially approved.

Which still has nothing to do with BA. And the comparison is about as reasonable as saying don't complain about beef prices because caviar is much more expensive.

So what?

Excellent piece. I laughed out loud!

I had to look up my school's long-forgotten foundation date of 1440.

1213 is the earliest foundation date I have ever heard of for a school T8191!... the university which gave me my first degree was founded in 1209. I remember that much.

My school was founded in 1976

That's the year I was founded :D

Hmm.... I've just checked and it seems my school was founded in 1963.

Ouch.

1859 here.

I did Common Entrance Latin in 1995. Got an A if I recall (one of 6, the other 5 were Bs...)

I agree the failure rate could be quite high.

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Not sure that helps, but I do accept that 'education' seems a bit different these days.

Yes - it's a terrible thing they've done away with the cane, eh? :rolleyes:

But seriously, I doubt that the failure rate would be quite that high. Luckily I own a lovely little red book (aka EU passport)... But OH had to take the test when he naturalised, so we studied together. Apart from the occasional lie ("all homes in the UK are connected to the sewer system" - not true; "all homes in the UK have a British Telecom telephone line" also not true) there was nothing in there that we didn't previously no... OH was quite terrified after he completed the test in 7 minutes and saw everyone else still hard at work (there's a 60 minute allowance IIRC).

The level of the questions seems to be:
Do we have a queen or a president?
A)Queen B) President....

Unless it has changed in the last 6 years....

There was an online practice test that I found online for a tenner. 400 questions I think. I'm sure they were from the real test because when I sat it, I finished my questions in about 3 minutes! Wish they gave you a score, not just pass/fail!

I have no objections to taking the test, or swearing alligence to the Queen (given that my birth nation had God Save the Queen as our national anthem during my school years!). I think they thought it would be like the Hollywood versions of the USA when immigrants get their citizenship, all emotional etc but most people came across as just embarrased and wanting to get their certificate. Within 30 minutes of gettng mine I was at the post office sending off for my passport. That came back in 7 days, the quickest part of the whole process!!

I remember OH's citizenship ceremony. We were sent down to Lewiscum (sorry, I mean Lewisham)... There was a retired army man in full regalia who told everyone that they must send their kids to the cadets to ensure that don't "fall into crime", and a load of people who could barely pronounce the oath of allegiance, let alone comprehend it...

I agree the failure rate could be quite high.

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Not sure that helps, but I do accept that 'education' seems a bit different these days.

Mmm, from a quick interweb search I can't find a school founded that year that anyone's heard of :D

Mine was merely 1732, also a scholarship boy who studied latin and never regretted it. Like highlife, I can lay claim to an alma mater that's (just) older than your school at least!

tb

I suspect that 90% of Swiss nationals wouldn't pass the questions that foreigners going through the naturalization process have to get through either. Most Swiss people don't even know who their President is, though granted as the post changes every year and it's an ultra-low profile position, that isn't surprising.

Moving over to the UK and Ireland forum for further discussion.

Prospero
Moderator: BAEC forum

Mmm, from a quick interweb search I can't find a school founded that year that anyone's heard of :D


Indeed, and I need to correct myself. I had harboured a misunderstanding for a very long time. It was, however, perceived that the Lovekyn Chapel was, in some form, also an educational facility - but only dating from 1309.

http://kingstongrammar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&Itemid=203&limit=1&limitstart=1

In 2011 Kingston Grammar School celebrates its 450th anniversary. On 1st March 1561 Queen Elizabeth I signed a Charter which established the “free grammar school of Queen Elizabeth, for the education training and instruction of boys and youths in grammar”. There is written evidence of a public school in Kingston at least two hundred years earlier, and some historians have suggested that the Charter was in effect putting the royal stamp on a school that had been operating off and on since the Middle Ages.

It was all very confusing :D

Does anyone else get a bit annoyed when the BAEC forum dumps their silly reject threads over here? ;)

An excellent article!

Whereas http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/01/uk-migrants-patriotic-citizenship-test?newsfeed=true is just depressing, including the corker:

A Home Office official said: "It's a move away from the old one – stuff on rights, practical info that has little to do with British culture



All of this goes to prove, though, just how difficult and unrealistic it is to provide a "test" for this sort of thing. There is little point, in my opinion, in asking the candidates, for example, questions about how to apply for a driving licence in the UK or which government department deals with some particular thing (most of the people doing the test will already have sorted out their driving arrangements anyway, and the roles of government departments and the like is something that one finds out when one needs to), or questions like which city out of Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds or Newcastle has the highest proportion of the population not born in the UK (who cares?).

I think asking about British history and "culture" is a better idea, but I'm not sure how it can be sensibly achieved so that it really tests what the people organising the test want to know about the candidates.

After all, I could find out (through a book) about rights and practical things, or about history and "culture" in Romania or Singapore or wherever, but that wouldn't mean that I really know anything about life in those countries.

The introduction of the test was largely a knee-jerk reaction by the previous government, in which the current government now seems to have acquiesced, in response to the terrorist attacks of the early years of the 21st century and also partly a response to criticisms of the government over matters of immigration and nationality policy. Knee-jerk reactions rarely make good policy, so it is no surprise to me that the whole thing has proved to be flawed.

Does anyone else get a bit annoyed when the BAEC forum dumps their silly reject threads over here? ;)

Funnily enough I considered posting something similar, about this particular thread (but then decided against it for fear of being reprimanded - "thou shalt not comment on moderator action" and all that)

The BAEC forum, from what I understand, is a fairly close-knit community. They know each other, they have their own culture and their own in-jokes. So there they are, in the midst of a discussion, complete with the usual in-jokes, and suddenly that discussion gets dragged into a different community (one which has also developed its own culture and in-jokes). It does always feel a bit bizarre when that happens... a bit like walking into a room full of strangers.

I actually found the discussion itself quite interesting (and wouldn't use the term "silly reject") - it's just that it's clearly a discussion that is taking place within a different community.

I think that's well put, Aviatrix.

Moderator action isn't supposed to be discussed on-thread, but in this case, it's not so much about that as how this board wants to deal with such threads, so it's worthy of more public discussion. However, I don't want to drag this thread further OT, so please let's take further comments to PM (I can start a more general discussion if need be).

My view is that it's good for BAEC to put general UK threads here, and that a good bit of non-travel discussion works well on this board. So my approach, with a thread like this, is to let it lie for a while. If it takes off, it has found a natural home. If it doesn't, perhaps it'd be more suited somewhere like OMNI/PR or Newsstand.

If you don't agree with this approach, please PM me. And, like I said, if you would like a wider, public discussion on what's included here - it's your forum, let me know (I can equally take up more general issues with senior mods).

But for now... Well, let's see what interest this thread gets here.

stut
Moderator
UK & Ireland

Does anyone else get a bit annoyed when the BAEC forum dumps their silly reject threads over here? ;)

No. Life is far too short for that, Reason077.

I think that's well put, Aviatrix.

Moderator action isn't supposed to be discussed on-thread, but in this case, it's not so much about that as how this board wants to deal with such threads, so it's worthy of more public discussion. However, I don't want to drag this thread further OT, so please let's take further comments to PM (I can start a more general discussion if need be).

My view is that it's good for BAEC to put general UK threads here, and that a good bit of non-travel discussion works well on this board. So my approach, with a thread like this, is to let it lie for a while. If it takes off, it has found a natural home. If it doesn't, perhaps it'd be more suited somewhere like OMNI/PR or Newsstand.

If you don't agree with this approach, please PM me. And, like I said, if you would like a wider, public discussion on what's included here - it's your forum, let me know (I can equally take up more general issues with senior mods).

But for now... Well, let's see what interest this thread gets here.

stut
Moderator
UK & Ireland

When a perfectly good-humoured and well-conducted discussion is booted off to the heady heights of "OMNI/PR or Newsstand", access to which is restricted to the élite and the privileged, the rest of us are automatically disenfranchised.

This discriminatory action serves what purpose, may one of the great unwashed dare to ask?

The World has changed, has it not?

I was learning Latin before my 11th birthday … why, you may ask, but it gave me a feeling for language. It didn't enhance my ability to de-coke a motorcycle engine or calculate the relevant benefits of Avios v. TPs. That came later :D

The only thing I was learning before my 11th birthday was how me and my siblings could knock seven shades of **** out of each other before being separated by our parents. The world has changed, as you say! ;)

The only thing I was learning before my 11th birthday was how me and my siblings could knock seven shades of **** out of each other before being separated by our parents. The world has changed, as you say! ;)
Ahhh … I was an only child.

However, on the positive side, it meant I eventually inherited everything :D

People often confuse dates in their old age :D

Are you one of these 'famous' people?

Notable former pupils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Grammar_School)


Indeed, and I need to correct myself. I had harboured a misunderstanding for a very long time. It was, however, perceived that the Lovekyn Chapel was, in some form, also an educational facility - but only dating from 1309.

http://kingstongrammar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&Itemid=203&limit=1&limitstart=1

tb

It was all very confusing :D

People often confuse dates in their old age :D
Are you one of these 'famous' people?
Notable former pupils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Grammar_School)

Nope.

I was asked to leave after my dismal performance in the Lower Sixth, though. I guess they don't list the 'infamous', 'idle' etc. etc. :D

Wouldn't be a lot better to do an English test rather than memorising that load of rubbish?

Oh and maybe test driving, check criminal backgrounds, qualifications and amount of money aswell.

Then with all that criteria make a decision.

That criterion
Those criteria

Do you have a British passport? :D

But then my school was founded in 1213, and had Charters from Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Not sure that helps, but I do accept that 'education' seems a bit different these days.
Clearly they left modesty off of the curriculum. ;)

Don't worry - as a British passport holder you can look forward to "interrogation by the locals" as you meet with the delightful men and women of UK Border Force as you re-enter "your" country!
Let 'em try - they can't keep you out. :) The purpose of the UKBA agent is to ascertain that your passport is not false and that you are the person in it. They cannot decide whether or not to let you enter the country and your purpose for being here is none of their business.

Wouldn't be a lot better to do an English test rather than memorising that load of rubbish?

Oh and maybe test driving, check criminal backgrounds, qualifications and amount of money aswell.

Then with all that criteria make a decision.
They already do more or less all of those things already, with the exception of qualifications. And they only check to make sure you're not going to be claiming benefits.

Let 'em try - they can't keep you out. :) The purpose of the UKBA agent is to ascertain that your passport is not false and that you are the person in it. They cannot decide whether or not to let you enter the country and your purpose for being here is none of their business.


Actually, if they don't approve of the reason for your visit, about which they are fully within their rights to question you, they can impede your entrance and transfer you to UKBA officers for further questioning. Those, in turn, have the authority to deny you entry into the UK, and ban you from travelling to or through the UK for a prescribed period of time. (This is, of course, not applicable to UK citizens.)

Wouldn't be a lot better to do an English test rather than memorising that load of rubbish?

Oh and maybe test driving, check criminal backgrounds, qualifications and amount of money aswell.

Then with all that criteria make a decision.
A knowledge of English is already required (and always has been in fact – all the hoo-ha in recent years is another "knee-jerk reaction"), with almost no exceptions.

I am not sure why testing driving would make sense for people applying for naturalisation – it is not a requirement to be able to drive to be a British citizen, and most people who apply for British citizenship have already been living in the UK for 3 years or more and therefore will have sorted out their driving arrangements in the UK if they are drivers.

Criminal background is checked.

There is no need to have qualifications to be a British citizen. Indeed there is no need to be in employment at all – after all, lots of people would say "home duties" or (in the old-fashioned term) "housewife" when asked about their occupation or job.

There is no need to have any particular amount of money to be a British citizen.

Don't forget that, with only very few exceptions (e.g. some registrations for children, registrations based on a UK-born mother if the applicant was born before 1983), all the people applying for citizenship are already settled in the UK and have usually been living in the UK for some years. Some of these things (qualifications, money) may indeed be looked into for some categories of immigration status, but becoming a British citizen is a different thing from immigrating.

Actually, if they don't approve of the reason for your visit, about which they are fully within their rights to question you, they can impede your entrance and transfer you to UKBA officers for further questioning. Those, in turn, have the authority to deny you entry into the UK, and ban you from travelling to or through the UK for a prescribed period of time. (This is, of course, not applicable to UK citizens.)
Yes – British citizens, and other Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode in the UK, do not require permission, or "leave", from an immigration officer to enter the UK, and the purpose of any visit is irrelevant from an immigration point of view. (Such people can, of course, be arrested on arrival, as for example Ronnie Biggs was on his return from Brazil... But they can't have any immigration-related restrictions placed on their stay in the UK.) These people can be questioned by immigration officials only insofar as is necessary to ascertain that their passport, or right of abode certificate, is valid and relates to the traveller presenting it. Of course, normally they are not questioned at all.

EU/EEA/Swiss citizens have a de-facto right to enter the UK and are almost never questioned about the reasons for the visit, although their right to enter the UK is not absolute and there are circumstances in which entry could be prohibited or conditions put upon their stay. (In practice this is of no relevance to the ordinary EU/EEA/Swiss traveller.)

Others do need leave to enter the UK and may be required to account for the purpose of their visit, and those with pre-existing leave to remain may be questioned about whether their circumstances have changed in such a way as to render the existing leave invalid.

Yes – British citizens, and other Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode in the UK, do not require permission, or "leave", from an immigration officer to enter the UK, and the purpose of any visit is irrelevant from an immigration point of view. (Such people can, of course, be arrested on arrival, as for example Ronnie Biggs was on his return from Brazil... But they can't have any immigration-related restrictions placed on their stay in the UK.)
As I was referring to British citizens, this is my point exactly. They can't keep us out.

With that said, it is probably best to not be arsey to an immigration agent. But at the same time, it never hurts to know one's rights.

I've always been tempted to put that to the test, but can imagine the bureaucracy I'd drown in!

Interesting debate last night on Question Time regarding this.

I've always been tempted to put that to the test, but can imagine the bureaucracy I'd drown in!
Well, I imagine that most immigrations officers know this, so they don't try to pretend otherwise! :)

How was John Lydon on Question Time last night, anyway? The Grauniad gave him mixed-to-positive reviews.

Well, I imagine that most immigrations officers know this, so they don't try to pretend otherwise! :)

How was John Lydon on Question Time last night, anyway? The Grauniad gave him mixed-to-positive reviews.

An interesting gentleman (http://www.holidays4heroes.org/2010/11/09/johnny-isnt-rotten/), for whom I have acquired a surprising degree of respect ;)

Well, I imagine that most immigrations officers know this, so they don't try to pretend otherwise! :)

How was John Lydon on Question Time last night, anyway? The Grauniad gave him mixed-to-positive reviews.
At times surprisingly lucid, at other times a complete arsehole. You know, he'd say something you really agreed with one moment and would be completely over the top the next. Way less annoying than Louise Mensch though - although hearing Louise Mensch and Jonny Lydon arguing about the effects drugs have on you was certainly entertaining... Alan Johnson very good. I've been enjoying him on This Week as well.

One of the audience smacked JL down very nicely 'John, I love you, but can you let me speak' to which he grinned and shut up and let her finish - not something he did for everyone.

As I was referring to British citizens, this is my point exactly.

Yes, I know you were, and I know it was. Once again, we are in agreement. :p