RayC

You do not need to submit any documentation to prove that you have been working abroad at this stage. Your first step is simply to submit the application form (CF83). You can either do this on line or by post. The section entitled 'What you’ll need' tells you, well, what you need in order to complete the form. If the DWP require any additional information/ documentation they will let you know.

Where is the evidence to support your contentions that the Allies planned for Alsace-Lorraine to revert to German control and other parts of France to be ceded to Italy? Whilst it is true that Roosevelt wanted AMGOT implemented in France, it was Eisenhower's opposition to the policy - with the aid of allies in Washington - which caused it to be dropped. Given De Gaulle's weak position, imo I doubt that his opposition was of any great import. To suggest that the US planned to "dismember" Russia overstates matters and presents only one side of the story. The following quote gives a more nuanced and imo, accurate description: "In 1991, two positions emerged in Washington. The first, embodied by US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, saw the breakup of the Soviet Union as a historic opportunity for the West to free itself from the Russian threat. The other, backed by US Secretary of State Jim Baker, argued for caution, focusing on the risks involved in the disintegration of a superpower, especially a nuclear one. As is well known, the latter position was the one adopted by President George H.W. Bush." (Source: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/after-fall-must-we-prepare-breakup-russia) Whether those suggesting that Putin is a new Empire builder are nationals of what you claim are hegemonist countries is irrelevant. It doesn't make the statement any less true.

This link outlines the process and what documentation you need https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-to-pay-voluntary-national-insurance-contributions-when-abroad-cf83

Imo the chances of any government unfreezing pensions in the next parliament is virtually zero, and the chances of it happening after that is very low.

Imo that scenario is extremely unlikely. There are 650 constituencies. There is a maximum of 50 where the Muslim vote will have any significant effect.

You got a hat-trick there. False premise, false argument and false conclusion. Your individual experience proves little. My experience, at roughly the same time, was almost the exact opposite. I was born and brought up in inner South London. Crime was rife; most of it was committed by locals who needed little instruction from immigrants in how to perform their "work".

On a national scale, the Muslim vote is pretty insignificant. There are only a handful of constituencies where Muslims are in the majority and relatively few where they are a significant minority.

The closest the UK got to having a socialist government was in 1945. The Blair/Brown administrations could only be classified as centre-left at most.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make? Yes, sanctions can also adversely effect the countries applying the sanctions. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to impose them. It is off-topic but I am intrigued by your claim that the US wanted to dismantle Belgium post-WW2. I am a Brit but I lived in Belgium for many years. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I consider myself to be reasonably well-informed about Belgium's history and have never heard of this plan until now. Can you supply a link with details about It please.

This opinion piece is hardly unexpected or news given that the source of it is the Conservative party's unofficial media mouthpiece. That said, I agree with the Telegraph that this is not 1997. Imo there doesn't appear to be much enthusiasm for Labour; it's just that there is even less for the Tories. The electorate seems to largely apathetic towards all parties. While Labour should win convincingly, the largest UKGov poll shows that 15% of voters are undecided who to vote for, and 10% say that they will not vote. It appears that there are still a lot of votes to play for.

See text below. Does that convince you that Feinstein is a Corbynite? Still offering your support to Andrew? "In December 2019, along with 42 other leading cultural figures, Feinstein signed a letter endorsing the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in the 2019 general election. The letter stated that "Labour's election manifesto under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership offers a transformative plan that prioritises the needs of people and the planet over private profit and the vested interests of a few." (Source: Wikipedia)

Ukraine has been a sovereign nation since 1991. That sovereignty entitles it to decide which countries it wishes to be aligned with. Ukraine chose the West (EU and NATO). Over the past 30+ years, Russia has continually tried to undermine Ukraine's ambitions to forge closer ties with the West, culminating in this invasion. The evidence for this premise has been outlined many times in this thread and others. It seems like you start with the conclusion that everything is due to US interference rather than analyse the evidence and then reach a conclusion.

Feinstein is a Corbyn supporter. You wished Feinstein 'Good luck' in his campaign to become a MP. Therefore, I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to assume that you share Feinstein's views which are in line with Corbyn's.😉

You two have suddenly converted into hard left Corbynists. Have to admit that I didn't see that one coming.

That tune brought back some memories (mainly good). Thanks for posting👍

More than a tiff by the sound of things. AfD too extreme even for the likes of France's NF and Belgium's Vlaams Belang. Tells you all you need to know.

You have avoided directly addressing my questions regarding Russia's relationship with its' neighbours. I agree with the principle of national self-determination, but am not so naive to believe that the effect on relations with other nations does not play a part in the decision making process. The topic of conversation is Ukraine, not Cuba. In any event, whatever the rights or wrongs of US "interference" in Cuban affairs, a defence of 'two wrongs make a right' offers no justification whatsoever for Russia's actions in Ukraine. You are wrong about the events in 2014 in Ukraine. The Maiden revolt against Yanukovych's pro-Russia government was not, as you imply, a result of US interference, but was fueled by Yanukovych unilaterally deciding against signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement; a measure which had been approved by the Ukrainian parliament, and a policy platform on which Yanukovych had stood for election in 2010. However, without wishing to sound like an apologist for Yanukovych, he was in a difficult position. Russia was opposed to the signing of the EU-Ukraine Agreement and had placed trade sanctions on Ukraine and issued threats against Ukraine - which culminated in the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass - in order to get the Ukrainian government to change its' stance. Re Landsbergis: Why shouldn't the Foreign Minister of a nation make public his views on international matters, especially where he believes that his nation's interests are involved?

Julian created this mess for Julian. He has demonstrated time and again that he does consider himself to be responsible and accountable for his actions. I would hope that the victims of Assange's alleged sexual crimes will get their day in court but, unfortunately, that now appears very unlikely.

No due process is well ... a process. It does not say anything about guilt or innocence. If by doing so it lead to people making millions of illegal downloads of movies, songs or books then you would leave yourself open to prosecution. However, I doubt that simply jotting down 64 characters in a notebook would result in illegal downloads taking place You can rewrite definitions as much and as often as you please. It is completely irrelevant. What counts is the legal definition(s) which I'm pretty certain doesn't mention RIAA. I don't know and I don't understand what point you are trying to make. There can be little doubt that Pirate Bay facilitated illegal downloads. This impinges on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). I can only assume that you do not believe in IPR.

You're of course correct that no one can force me to watch GB News which is a blessing. However, by no stretch of the imagination can it be claimed that GB News is somehow less bias than other media outlets. The political affiliations of tonight's presenters suggests the exact opposite.

The first court found Pirate Bay guilty, the Swedish Appeal Court upheld the verdict, the ECJ confirmed the verdict and, in a separate case, a UK court reached a similar conclusion. Do you believe all these courts were following the same political motivated agenda? It all sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/pirate-bay-european-court-of-justice-rules-infringing-copyright-torrent-sites

Tonight's GB news schedule: 4:00pm Martin Daubney (former Reform party politician) 7:00pm Dewbs & Co Michelle Dewberry (Reform party member) 8:00pm Farage (Former Brexit party leader) 9:00pm Jacob Rees-Mogg's State of the Nation (Conservative party MP) 10:00pm Patrick Christys Tonight (no idea who he is or what is his political affiliation) And you consider that line-up to be representative and less bias than the presenters on BBC News, Channel 4, ITV, CNN, etc?

Index files could be viewed as derivatives. (I have no idea whether this formed part of the prosecution's case) As you are no doubt aware, Judge Norstrom's impartially was the subject of an appeal. This appeal was heard and dismissed. It is also worth noting that there were two other judges in addition to Norstrom. You might not agree with the verdict but the bottom line is that due process was followed according to Swedish law.

You appear to have given Rayner a Scouse accent.

So your solution is what? Raise the drawbridge and have us live like a European version of North Korea?