Cameron's First Term: Part 2


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Cameron's First Term: Part 2

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 12 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1279261 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 13:58:54 UTC - in response to Message 1279260.


Regarding your passport status, I'm not au fait with the current rulings, but if you genuinely feel that you have a case for a UK passport, then the best advice I can give you is to attend the next advice session of your local MP. At the very least he/she should be able to obtain upon your behalf, a written statement of your status from the Home Office.



Ooops, you missed the point - I was highlighting the stupidity within the system. I do not want or need a British passport - too many restrictions.
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,924
RAC: 7,881
United Kingdom
Message 1279292 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 16:08:03 UTC - in response to Message 1279207.

Ok lets try and tweak out the salient facts here.

He was born to a British Army officer in pre-independence India. Unknown to him, this conferred a lesser form of British nationality known as a “British subject without citizenship”. He was, he says, never told about this status and was issued with a British passport in the normal way.

After a degree at Cambridge, postgraduate study at Sussex and a career in UK academia, Prof Tulloch took a job in Australia and was granted Australian citizenship. Unlike with a full British citizen, and again unknown to him, this automatically cancelled both his British nationality and his right to live in Britain. When he applied to renew his British passport, it was confiscated.

A UK Border Authority spokesman said: “It is the responsibility of an individual to check that they will not lose a previously acquired nationality or citizenship on acquiring an additional one.” However, Home Office sources said that it was still open to Prof Tulloch to apply for leave to remain in the country if he wished.

This seems to me to be yet another case where rules that might have been deemed appropriate over 60 years ago, are not fit for purpose in today's society. Controlling immigration is a complex minefield and too much of our legislation sometimes contradicts its intended benefits.

Before anyone shouts "jobsworths" Civil Servants are paid to interpret the rules as they stand, as best as they can, it isn't their remit to challenge the rules as such. But of course changes are suggested and recommendations for exemptions are made. In this case which has now been highlighted by the media, there is obviously something patently wrong which needs to be remedied in a common sense manner.

As I understand it the Home Office has the power to grant "Special Dispensation" to reside in the UK, and I sincerely hope they do so here.


That quote differs from a para further up the page;

But as he moves into semi-retirement, he has now been told that he can no longer permanently remain here and can only visit for brief periods as a tourist. The Home Office has also told him that he cannot apply for naturalisation.


Having had to deal quite a bit with the civil servants dealing with Births, deaths etc and passports, there are a lot that act very strictly according to rules and regulations. The there are the helpful ones that see that the rules are should not be black and white and seek advice from further up the chain. And ensure common sense prevails.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32344
Credit: 14,277,501
RAC: 7,503
United Kingdom
Message 1279297 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 16:23:09 UTC

Hi WK, I welcome your input.

That quote differs from a para further up the page;

Yes it does, I spotted that as well. But that's by the Rules as they currently stand. Nevertheless ...

As I understand it the Home Office has the power to grant "Special Dispensation" to reside in the UK, and I sincerely hope they do so here.

It needs an act of parliament to change legislation, which needs to go through Committee stages and readings. But the Home Secretary has a certain power of over-rule or veto in the public interest. I would have thought that this applies here.


WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,924
RAC: 7,881
United Kingdom
Message 1279301 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 16:42:08 UTC - in response to Message 1279297.
Last modified: 2 Sep 2012, 16:43:42 UTC

Hi WK, I welcome your input.

That quote differs from a para further up the page;

Yes it does, I spotted that as well. But that's by the Rules as they currently stand. Nevertheless ...

As I understand it the Home Office has the power to grant "Special Dispensation" to reside in the UK, and I sincerely hope they do so here.

It needs an act of parliament to change legislation, which needs to go through Committee stages and readings. But the Home Secretary has a certain power of over-rule or veto in the public interest. I would have thought that this applies here.



I actually have two letters signed by Home Office Under-Secretarys. One for me and another for my youngest son, explaining why we are British citizens.
(In 1983/4 all children, and I mean all, born to British subects outside of the UK were not British citizens, even those born in British Military Hospitals.)
They have to be shown, or notarized copies sent, for each passport application, a right pain in the neck. Nearly every time we seem to get a jobsworth civil servant dealing with the application. It got so bad on one occasion I had to contact my MP, who then spoke to the Minister, to get things sorted out in time.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2594
Credit: 5,391,523
RAC: 3,359
United States
Message 1279306 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 17:00:16 UTC - in response to Message 1279198.

Another decision by bureaucracy that fails he common sense rule.

July 7 survivor faces deportation from Britain

A university lecturer injured in the 7/7 bombings faces being expelled from the UK even though he was born to British parents in a British colony.


I seems that the inmates are running the asylum.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32344
Credit: 14,277,501
RAC: 7,503
United Kingdom
Message 1279317 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 17:41:38 UTC

After some positive comments it would be a shame to step back into negativity.

We all know that the system isn't perfect, and needs overhauling, but it is the best we have for the moment. It is fair to say that the possession and ownership of a British passport, is arguably one of the most valuable documents in the world today. Consequently they are not given out without necessarily having the strictest of safeguards in place.

Having said that, those that are genuinely entitled to hold one should have one, without having to jump through unnecessary hoops and officialdom. Aren't we all on the same side?

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1279351 - Posted: 2 Sep 2012, 19:28:42 UTC - in response to Message 1279317.
Last modified: 2 Sep 2012, 19:29:55 UTC

Another good post, but however, lay off the "negativity".

It's not a question of negativity but the fact in pointing out: - stupidity/incompetence/negligence.

I personally have over 4 dozen letters on my system that I forwarded to civil servants praising their assistance & well timely intervention of some of their colleagues stupidity. To offset that, I have over 2000 documents that highlight said stupidity/incompetence/negligence, which to this day, is still occuring.

The problem with the civil service is that many of the good ones are trapped in that due to constant rules & regulations changing, it's almost impossible to keep abreast of those changes, & when they have used their common sense, actually get reprimanded which I have personally witnessed & felt genuinely sorry for the person geting reprimanded as it shouldn't have happened in public!

As already stated by myself, the major problem is not the civil servants themselves but the mandarins (as well as some "jobsworths" that slip through) that control them! This is what needs changing & reforming, not the civil service itself!

The other major problem that civil servants have to face on a daily basis is that too many people are abusive towards them & those very same abusive people do not know how to use two very important words in the English language: -

Those are: -

Thank You
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32344
Credit: 14,277,501
RAC: 7,503
United Kingdom
Message 1279580 - Posted: 3 Sep 2012, 9:34:22 UTC

As already stated by myself, the major problem is not the civil servants themselves but the mandarins (as well as some "jobsworths" that slip through) that control them! This is what needs changing & reforming, not the civil service itself!

I happily accept your point. But there has to be a top down "culture change" first, only then will the old brigade find themselves out on a limb and start to fall by the wayside.

I spent most of my working life with a National Utility, which effectively 30 years ago was a simple monopoly of their service. You wanted it you went to them, or went without. When de-regulation happened and others were allowed to compete within their market, it truly was a life changing event. It took maybe more than 5 years to effect a company wide culture change, where people were actually seen as "customers" who now had the ability to take their business elsewhere.

I lived through it, and yes, there were "Mandarins" that were unable to adapt to the new order of things, and took early retirement. It is happening to a certain extent now with the Civil Service, where they are starting to realise that you can't hide behind rules and regulations in the 21C, people won't accept that any more and will mount challenges. The days of the pompous little jobsworth clerk at the local Council Offices is also coming to a close, and quite rightly too.

There is certainly a will for change, and it will happen, and I just hope that the media will play a positive part in that transformation, as it could help to bring it about that much sooner. I think that you and I are basically on the same side here Sirius, it's just that we tend to approach it from different sides of the same fence.





Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1280694 - Posted: 6 Sep 2012, 19:08:01 UTC

PM says "burglars" are cowards

"But I'm very clear; burglary is not bravery, burglary is cowardice, burglary is a hateful crime".

P WDL
13247

However, using the same link, it seems that betreger is correct....

It seems that the inmates are running the asylum.


"The judge reportedly told the offender on Tuesday: "It takes a huge amount of courage, as far as I can see, for somebody to burgle somebody's house. I wouldn't have the nerve." & that makes it alright for asswipes to do it?

P WDL
14248
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1281179 - Posted: 7 Sep 2012, 21:11:01 UTC

Now that the "silly season" is, hopefully, over, we may see some genuine advancements.....

...can the wins overtake the losses? That is the Q!

UK Broadband aided by rule changes

P WDL
15348

No decision until after General election

Was that the reason why Justine Greening got demoted? Stumbling block to that 3rd runway?

P WDL
16349
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32344
Credit: 14,277,501
RAC: 7,503
United Kingdom
Message 1281432 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 13:06:51 UTC

Removing planning rules about sites for Telecomms cabinets, may result in them being plonked just anywhere and becoming eyesores. I understand why this has been done, but I'll reserve my opinion on it.

As for the Heathrow situation, the issue is pretty clear. The UK desperately needs more runway capacity in the fairly near future to maintain its position as a main air hub, and to compete with Europe. If this isn't done then we risk letting other countries expanding their facilities to our detriment.

There are really only four practical possibilities to solve this problem.

    1. Heathrow (LHR) runway 3
    2. Expand Gatwick (LGW)
    3. Expand regional airports
    4. Boris Island in the Thames Estuary (LBI ???)


In scenario 1, I used to work at a large computer centre at Harmondsworth on the outskirts of Heathrow, and I can tell you from first hand knowledge, of the resistance from the local communities, including Sipson. Heathrow

As for option 2, I would suspect political opposition as much as anything else. Gatwick

Regarding option 3, the Environmentalists and Green lobbies would go into overdrive and effectively scupper most plans.

So, option 4 Boris Island. When I first heard of this, like most others I simply dismissed it as another typical Johnson election ploy. But the more I think about it, it may have some merit after all. Boris Island

But we have a major problem. Everybody agrees on the one hand that we need extra runway capacity, but on the other hand nobody wants it either! It's the NIMBY factor. What is patently wrong here is that the government have chosen to duck the issue, by deferring it until after 2015. If they get in again with a new 5 year mandate, they will simply force LHR runway 3 through, whether people like it or not.

If god forbid, Labour get in again, they will be faced with the same situation as the present Goverment and will probably come to the same conclusion. Then of course the Tories can sit back and say, don't blame us, we didn't do it! It's nothing less than political cowardice, a decision needs to be taken now, not in 3 years time. In this case I will not support the Governments stance.

As for Justine Greening, the press and others have jumped to the obvious conclusion that she was moved because of her open opposition to LHR RW3. That may or may be not true, I expect we will know one way or the other in time. It's not important anyway she is small fry.


Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1281442 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 13:28:14 UTC - in response to Message 1281432.

Very good post...it would have received an "excellent" mark if not for this...

It's not important anyway she is small fry.

That was uncalled for!

____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8748
Credit: 25,598,924
RAC: 7,881
United Kingdom
Message 1281450 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 13:45:34 UTC - in response to Message 1281432.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 13:46:02 UTC

To be absolutely honest I have no sympathy for 98% of the people around Heathrow. As a kid in the early comet days I flew in and out of Heathrow when it was just starting to be an international airport.
There was nothing there except all the water treatment plants, a few farms and small villages. A few industrial buildings were being built on the fringe of the airport, probably for freight transport etc.

So all these people that complain about the noise are in housing built after the start of Heathrow.

I can see similar complaints coming from people near Gatwick, well just check the population change of Crawley. Thats in my patch, I remember it as a very small town, not somewhere the Ladies in your life would go to do their shopping. Our families women went to Brighton or Eastborne, maybe Lewis or just for a real change Tunbridge Wells.

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1281474 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 15:24:34 UTC - in response to Message 1281432.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 15:42:11 UTC

There are really only four practical possibilities to solve this problem.
    1. Heathrow (LHR) runway 3
    2. Expand Gatwick (LGW)
    3. Expand regional airports
    4. Boris Island in the Thames Estuary (LBI ???)



Solution No.5... Farnborough....
....ah! wont that effect the quality of life of those elitist's who live
in that county.....there goes the problem.....not on our doorstep please.

But do remember why so many people living around Heathrow are against this third
runway.....they were lied to over Terminal 5. "There will be no further
development at Heathrow once Terminal Five gets built". Utter bare-face lying
by all concerned, government and B.A.A. Expansion of Heathrow is not the
solution to our air traffic problems, no it just happens to be the cheapest
for now. Dump stupid HST2 and use this money to build a NEW international
airport as close to London as Heathrow is...hence Farnborough is the correct
long term solution.... Farnborough is just as close.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32344
Credit: 14,277,501
RAC: 7,503
United Kingdom
Message 1281494 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 15:59:23 UTC

I assume you are talking about Farnborough Hants. Farnborough Airport (FHB) Has a number of current uses, and some undocumented MOD ones. I doubt that it would be seriously considered.

The airfield is the home of the Farnborough Airshow which takes place on even numbered years. It is also home to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, part of the Department for Transport.

Farnborough

Stansted is a possibility.

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1281551 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 17:34:04 UTC - in response to Message 1281494.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 17:35:12 UTC

I assume you are talking about Farnborough Hants. Farnborough Airport (FHB) Has a number of current uses, and some undocumented MOD ones. I doubt that it would be seriously considered.

The airfield is the home of the Farnborough Airshow which takes place on even numbered years. It is also home to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, part of the Department for Transport.

Farnborough

Stansted is a possibility.


Swap the two around....Stansted Airshow and other military operations and
Farnborough as an international Airport (UKF International)...and lets drop the
silly London in front of all these airports names.....no ones fooled by this
as has been the case to date.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1281578 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 18:21:42 UTC - in response to Message 1281551.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 18:22:02 UTC

Too late for Stanstead to act as a military airshow airfield, it's been too commercialised. However, since the A120 bypass was built, it has enough space to be developed as a large international airport - unless the local NIMBY's stick their oar in.

Like what happened at RAF Alconbury back in the 90's. The development laid out for that was superb as it was planned for an international regional airport as well as an Eastern Logistics distribution hub - however John Major & other "muppets" from Little Stukeley put a stop to those plans.

With larger & larger aircraft being built like the Airbus, many airports are going to have to move with the times regardless of NIMBY's, but unfortunately they are the ones with power & do not wish their idyllic homes destroyed by noise.
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1281596 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 18:50:39 UTC - in response to Message 1281578.

Too late for Stanstead to act as a military airshow airfield, it's been too commercialised. However, since the A120 bypass was built, it has enough space to be developed as a large international airport - unless the local NIMBY's stick their oar in.


Only fools and politicians would ever pump money into Stansted Airport in
hopes of boosting it's status and unattractiveness to business.
Business and commerce has already told us what they think of this airport.....
....it's not where they wont it so they hardly use it. They way forwards is to
build a completely new International Airport with status behind it. Farnborough
is the correct location for this airport. It's the ideal side of the M25, the
ideal side of the City of London and the ideal side to Heathrow to link to it.

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7135
Credit: 28,515,034
RAC: 16,914
United Kingdom
Message 1281601 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 19:07:26 UTC

Seems Farnborough is no longer MOD

The civil enclave was operated by Farnborough Business Aviation until 2003, when the Ministry of Defence stopped operations at Farnborough. All experimental aircraft were moved to MoD Boscombe Down; the airport was taken over by TAG. Commercial defence research continues to be carried out in the adjunct Cody Technology Park by research firm QinetiQ.Aviation.


____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11795
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1281634 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 20:24:32 UTC - in response to Message 1281596.

Looking at the map, gotta agree with you. However, I think the yuppies & nimbys might complain when they're playing golf at the Southwood golf course!
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 12 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Cameron's First Term: Part 2

Copyright © 2014 University of California