INFORMATIONThis website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our
Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#21
Post
by Nick » July 14th, 2009, 9:27 am
Latest post of the previous page:
I quite agree, jaywhat. To mug up for 24 questions proves absolutely nothing.
Having said that, what questions do you think should be asked to test whether someone knew something of Britain?
-
jaywhat
- Posts: 15807
- Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
#22
Post
by jaywhat » July 14th, 2009, 1:39 pm
Why was Stevenage once called 'Silkingrad'?
How many beans make five?
Can you call feinights in a game of scrabble?
What is the county town of Hertfordshire?
Which knot is good for slipping?
-
Nick
- Posts: 11027
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
#23
Post
by Nick » July 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm
How about:
"Describe (briefly) the rules of Mornington Crescent."
That should reduce the immigration figures

-
Fia
- Posts: 5480
- Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
#24
Post
by Fia » July 14th, 2009, 8:37 pm
Just playing Mornington Crescent without looking bemused should give anyone a passport in my book
How about:
According to Billy Connolly what would be a better British national anthem?
When Irish eyes are smiling?
Scotland the Brave?
The Archers theme tune?
Cwm Rhondda?
-
Ken H
- Posts: 4256
- Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 12:09 am
#25
Post
by Ken H » July 14th, 2009, 9:29 pm
Fia wrote:
According to Billy Connolly what would be a better British national anthem?
I think it should be based on a British drinking song, as is the melody to the US national anthem ("The Anacreontic Song" by John Stafford Smith).

This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#26
Post
by getreal » July 15th, 2009, 1:15 pm
I think Billy said it was the "Archers" theme.
It's nice and bouncy and jaunty. Much better than the dirge we have at the moment.
I don't know if this is a requirement at present, but I think a reasonable command of english-written and spoken, would make a worthwhile requirement for citizenship. It would help to lessen the isolation of immigrants and being able to read some English would make it easier to access information.
Some women coming with their husbands are very isolated -and remain so-due to their lack of language skills.
This will also provide some jobs in FE for TEFL teachers.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
-
Fia
- Posts: 5480
- Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
#27
Post
by Fia » July 15th, 2009, 2:13 pm
Yup, Getreal, the Archers is right - Billy said everyone could learn to tum-te-tum it whilst on a bus from the airport
And on a more serious note I fully agree there is an isolation problem for some women, often exacerbated by their children translating for them.
-
Gurdur
- Posts: 610
- Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:00 pm
#28
Post
by Gurdur » July 21st, 2009, 11:57 pm
Would you make a good UK citizen?
I don't drink enough.
-
Daniel P
- Posts: 172
- Joined: March 30th, 2009, 12:38 pm
#29
Post
by Daniel P » July 24th, 2009, 8:49 pm
I got naturalised earlier this year, and had to take the test. I passed of course, and I had read the textbook. I agree that many of the questions were not very meaningful, but still, the textbook taught me a few things I didn't know (e.g. I thought that the House of Lords still consisted mostly of hereditary peers and didn't realize how much it had changed.)
One thing that concerns me, is that my English language skills weren't tested during the naturalisation process. The official view is that, because the test is in English, if you've passed you understand English well enough. But the only English language skills that the test involves are about reading; that says nothing of your ability to actually speak the language. This problem was demonstrated when I attended the citizenship ceremony. A few of my fellow applicants were unable to say the word "allegiance" in the oath ("I promise to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors"), and what they said sounded more like "religion."
-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#30
Post
by getreal » July 24th, 2009, 8:59 pm
Have to agree that good english language skills are very important for people settling in the UK.
It can be very isolating otherwise. I'm surprised you didn't have a test as I thought that was part of the naturalisation process.
It'd be a lot more usefull than pledging allegience to queenie.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
-
Daniel P
- Posts: 172
- Joined: March 30th, 2009, 12:38 pm
#31
Post
by Daniel P » July 25th, 2009, 2:16 pm
getreal wrote:Have to agree that good english language skills are very important for people settling in the UK.
I'm surprised you didn't have a test as I thought that was part of the naturalisation process.
There used to be an interview with immigration officers, and your English language skills were assessed at that point. But a few years ago, the system was changed, and the interview was replaced by the computer-based test.
-
gcb01
- Posts: 564
- Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm
#32
Post
by gcb01 » July 25th, 2009, 4:55 pm
15/24 so I failed.
What a load of donkey-doo!
Most of the questions related to info which is of no practical use whatsoever.
it establishes again the idiocy of this government.
Regards
Campbell
-
jaywhat
- Posts: 15807
- Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
#33
Post
by jaywhat » July 25th, 2009, 6:52 pm
getreal wrote:Have to agree that good english language skills are very important for people settling in the UK.
It can be very isolating otherwise. I'm surprised you didn't have a test as I thought that was part of the naturalisation process.
It'd be a lot more usefull than pledging allegience to queenie.
Just corrected a few errors -
Have to agree that good
English language skills are very important for people settling in the UK.
It can be very isolating otherwise. I'm surprised you didn't have a test as I thought that was part of the naturalisation process.
It'd be a lot more
useful than pledging
allegiance to queenie.
Even as an anti-royal I think a newcomer might be expected to call queenie 'Her Majesty'.

-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#34
Post
by getreal » July 25th, 2009, 8:04 pm
Absolutly not, Jaywhat.
and the lack of a capital at "english" was intentional.

"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#35
Post
by getreal » July 25th, 2009, 8:05 pm
getreal wrote:Absolutly not, Jaywhat.
and the lack of a capital at "english" was intentional.

Thanks for the spelling corrections, Sir. Can I go now?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#37
Post
by Alan H » August 5th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Beki
- Posts: 710
- Joined: July 5th, 2007, 8:43 am
#38
Post
by Beki » August 20th, 2009, 2:12 pm
Yip - a fail too.... 58% obviously I am rubbish.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. - M Ghandi
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#39
Post
by Alan H » August 20th, 2009, 7:35 pm
Beki wrote:Yip - a fail too.... 58% obviously I am rubbish.
Out...out...out you go!

Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
coledavis
- Posts: 369
- Joined: August 17th, 2008, 6:29 pm
#40
Post
by coledavis » August 30th, 2009, 1:56 pm
I think it's rubbish for a different reason: my wife got into the country by passing it. I told her to revise for it - ok, so I'm partly to blame - but she said it was "shit" (demonstrating her mastery of the demotic), meaning that it was easy for her to learn it by heart and pour it into the computer at Buggerden Borough Library. She now works as a cultural trainer, explaining to various troglodytes, cannibals and nose-flutists the importance to Britties of patron saints, putting children up chimnies at a good age and knowing the precise percentage of coloured people per square inch of land. (Yes, you've got it, I'm in a perverse mood, as I have a cold and am due to do a lot of teaching this week.)
-
getreal
- Posts: 4354
- Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm
#41
Post
by getreal » August 30th, 2009, 8:39 pm
I thought they had closed that particular loophole in the immigration act which allowed cannabalistic nose-flautists entry to the UK after the series of articles in the Daily Mail?
Not sure about the troglodytes. Aren't they now in the EU anyway?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.