RayC

I don't have a problem. It's your opinion. But there's no point in discussing matters any more if all the evidence you have amounts to, 'I know what I know'.

Any event, between 19 February 1960 and 20 June 1982 (both dates inclusive) which would have caused Charles to renounce his (future) claim to the throne would have resulted in Andrew becoming first-in-line and this would have meant that he would now be King. So, yes strictly speaking, two significant events: An event affecting Charles' right to succeed AND the death of the Queen would have both been necessary for Andrew to become King. But you knew that is what I meant. There really isn't any limit to your pedantry, is there? (Cue reply about how neither of us can know what the other is thinking or some sarky remark about having no idea how my mind works).

But you see it as relevant to the topic to suggest that sham marriages are a problem in the UK (without any data to support your view)?

So if I've understood you correctly, you are saying that there is nothing wrong with being anti-immigration? Presumably, you don't see the irony in holding such a view whilst, at the same time, being an immigrant yourself?

What he says is never trust a non-white, non-UK trained doctor. He bases his conclusion on "Ravens are birds, all ravens are black therefore all birds are black" type logic.

As long as they don't expect me to follow their lead, people can believe in the Tooth Fairy for all I care, although I doubt that I would understand their reason for doing that either. Neither you nor I know anything about the OP's marriage situation, so you can't possibly rationally assume that the issue of sham marriage is of any relevance in this particular context. As the data shows, there is no significant sham marriage "problem" in the UK. It's just another attempt to beat the anti-immigrant drum.

George VI was, at one point, second-in-line for the throne. He became King. Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were, at one point, second-in-line for US presidency. They both became President. Prince Andrew was, a long period of time, second-in-line for the throne. He didn't become King but he was only ever one "significant" event from succeeding to the throne. I rest my case.

near·ly /ˈnirlē/ adverb 1. very close to; almost. Source: Google

The (non) issuing of Thai Non-O spousal ME visas has absolutely nothing to do with UK Home Office data and/or sham marriages in the UK. I would have thought that much was blindingly obvious but apparently not. The UK government has not increased the financial requirements for family visa applications in order to curb sham marriages, although I guess that might be a possible tiny by-product: It has done so in order to reduce the number of immigrants. It's just nonsense to suggest that the Home Office is "woke infested".

Official Home Office data vs. individual anecdotal evidence. Which is more credible?

Seasons greetings. I see that you are back to your pedantic self.

Second in line to the throne at one point.

I think that you should check the source of the data quoted by the "open borders brigade"; it's the Home Office. The report you link to is from 2013 so is now completely outdated and irrelevant. The link that I provided is from July this year so still very much relevant.

Most of you are being beastly to Prince Andrew. He worked very hard on behalf of the UK. More importantly in this context, he much prefers nights out at Woking's Pizza Hut to sordid sex parties. He said so and he was nearly King, so it must be true.

Unfortunately, there is currently no mechanism to expel Hungary. Introducing a mechanism would require Treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Hungary would not, of course, support any such measure.

Singapore has a "strongman" government but imo it is not authoritarian. Opposition is allowed and there are relatively free elections. A mixed economy is, of course, entirely possible but I'm not sure how you can have "selective fascism", and I'm even less sure that it would be desirable even if it were.

"Fascism isn't all bad". I guess that is true. Apparently Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover, and some of those Nazi uniforms did look very smart, so "all bad", no. The big "But ....." is when you look at Fascism as a political ideology and/or system of government. Then it is all bad and I cannot even try to understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Those in search of a desolate moral vacuum look no further.

That'll be why 75% of asylum applications are approved at the initial stage🙄

MSM, X. You seem to question the validity of any source which doesn't fit your narrative. Presumably Pravda and 'Russia Today' are to be believed?

And that makes it ok?

The easiest way to refute an accusation of racism is to tackle it head on. So when I suggest that a statement has racist undertones, show me where I am wrong and/or how the statement might be interpreted differently. Pointing out that tourists in Thailand are st to discriminatory pricing does not do that.

Absolute tosh. In this particular instance, you suggested that migrant workers in the UK should not be treated the same as native-born workers until they became permanent residents i.e. until at least 5 years had elapsed. I asked you directly if you would then withhold access to the NHS/ education for those migrant workers and their families who did not meet your threshold, and explained why I thought this could be racist/ xenophobic. You (still) have the opportunity to refute that view by addressing the questions which I posed directly, and/or pointing out flaws in my argument. You have chosen not to do so but, now instead attempt to play the 'victim' card.

I'm never usually in favour of suicide or murder but, in this instance, it would almost certainly* prove greatly beneficial. * "almost certainly" because, unfortunately, there is the slim possibility that his replacement could be worse

Adding a laughing emoji would be inappropriate but what absolute nonsense as usual. Did you read the article? Did you miss the bit about your hero Putin's seemingly casual attitude towards the death of Russian troops?