brewsterbudgen

Thanks for the correction. Not that England have much chance of winning it anyway, no matter what's called these days. ????

Did they do it without cheating this time?

I agree cricket is more interesting; but baseball is usually more exciting.

Not on TV, which is what this thread is about.

And a delicious British classic dish it is!

BT Sport (a British channel, in case you weren't aware of it) show baseball all through the season, usually a different game every day between April and the Fall classic, which is coming to an exciting end right now. Give it a try and you might like it. Go Phillies... I love cricket but Test cricket it isn't a great TV sport and I can't get into The Hundred. While I think baseball is one of the world's greatest sports, football is the greatest, and as a proud Englishman (usually) I'm looking forward to Harry lifting the Jules Rimet later this year. ⚽????????????????????????????

Unfortunately, you're almost certainly right about that. I guess we'll have to put up with Starmer.

Yes, Brexit wasn't a party political issue, but Cameron called the referendum when he didn't have to. Had he not, it may well have led to a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn, who despite being anti-EU, would never have called a referendum. Farage would never have won, but he might have wiped out the Tories. Anyway, it's all history now and maybe off topic.

Of course not, but MPs could have done it has there been the political will to do so. Calling the referendum in an attempt to unite the Tory party was the mistake that Cameron will regret to his dying day and will never be forgiven for.

That's not a requirement for a UK passport. It's immaterial where the baby was conceived.

That's not how the British parliamentary system works. MPs vote according to their conscience. They can always be voted out by the electors in their constituency at the next election.

The most important document is the long-form birth certificate of the British parent, as this shows whether the child is entitled to be British. Children born overseas to a parent who is British By Descent cannot take up their parent's British citizenship, except under exceptional circumstances. The British parent needs to show that they are British Otherwise Than By Descent in order to pass on their citizenship. Apart from that, yes the Thai birth certificate showing the British parent's name (translated into English) plus the mother's ID card/passport/birth certificate. A marriage certificate can be attached but there is no requirement to be married. You'll need counter-signed passport photos, preferably counter-signed by a UK passport holder, plus proof of your (or the child's) address in Thailand. The application and attachments need to be submitted in person at the HMPO office at VFS in Bangkok or Chiang Mai. They will check everything before submitting it to Liverpool for processing. You might need to allow up to 11 weeks to get it! Edit: the mother's birth certificate is not essential. My wife doesn't have one, but our son's passport was issued with just her passport and ID card details.

The referendum was advisory. MPs could have, and should have, done what was right for the future of the country, and not invoked Article 50, rather than slavishly follow the wishes of 52% of the gullible and misled British public. That's what they're elected to do.

My wife is Lao and half her family "live" in Thailand. Those that want to be legal do monthly border runs to Cambodia just get stamped in for 30 days under the reciprocal agreement between Laos and Thailand. I don't believe there is any limit of how many they can do. Not ideal obviously. Hopefully she can get something more permanent sorted out. My wife's family who don't care about being legal, just stay here! If they leave to go back to Laos, there don't seem to be any serious repercussions re the overstay, and they never have to pay the proper fine - most of them are baht-less, which is why they're going back!

Not wanting to "insert myself" into the discussion, but I don't think there would be any mitigating circumstances when it comes to child abuse, no matter where the offence is committed.

It might also mean banning songthaews too! That wouldn't go down well in Pattaya.

I think your memory's correct. Initially the ban was lifted for Songkran, but then quietly never reinstated. Not that there was much chance of it ever being enforced anyway!

I'm sure I read that even today migrants are net contributors to the UK's economy?

And he probably lives in Thailand himself!

I can't read the article as the Torygraph has a paywall. In any case, I'd take as much notice of what they say as I do the Daily Fail and the other right-wing media.

Indeed. Another Brexit bonus!

Life is all about risk. I remember Californians in the 1990s being outraged that their freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet was being taken away, when the law was changed. If a Thai family only has a pick-up they have no choice but to use it. Maybe more people should be blaming the drunk trunker who rear-ended them!

Actually, most of them are refugees.

It's a stupid rule. Waitresses, dancers, cleaners...just need to be 18+.

Sad, but very true.