JonnyF

Hardly. 1. People who cannot meet the new requirements are unlikely to be happy with them. 2. Non British nationals cannot expect to have the same rights in Britain as British nationals. The requirement is for a visa. British nationals do not require a visa to live in Britian.

As I am not. Of course without a straw man you have no argument.

At best its misleading. At worst it's a downright lie. Given the context in which he made the claim I'd say it's a downright lie to garner sympathy and support from the death of his son. What a man.

Dont be ridiculous. You cant expect British nationals and non British nationals to have the same rights in Britain. Same as you dont have the rights as a Thai in Thailand. Or the same rights as a Japanese national in Japan. That's how it works the world over. Cry racism all you like but the fact is a white Australian national doesn't have the same rights as a black/Asian Briton in Britain, the white Australian has less rights. It's based on nationality not race. And rightly so.

Yeah Joe lied about that as well to try and score points during a speech. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12113639/Biden-raises-eyebrows-claiming-late-son-Beau-passed-away-brain-cancer-died-Iraq.html Imagine that, misleading people about your own sons death to score brownie points. I'd say it was a new low but this is Joe Biden we are talking about.

Poor performance against Bournemouth. Who could have imagined 15 years ago that losing 3-0 at home to Bournemouth was a good result because it should really have been 4.

Children are a reflection of their parents. Being the son the POTUS cannot keep you out of jail forever. This is starting to resemble the case of the red bull kid in Thailand. A national embarrassment for the once great US of A. Let's hope they prove that there is no corruption in the US legal system and he goes to jail. It's time.

How can anyone trail Trump in popularity. Seriously. Biden is absolutely awful. He can barely walk or string a sentence together. Has US politics really sunk so low ?

Classic anti Tory hyperbole from the guardian. If you want to bring a spouse to the country you must be able to support them and yourself. The rules could be more refined but the sentiment is correct.

Is your wife being put up in a hotel free of charge while her application is processed? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/cost-housing-asylum-seekers-hotels-rise-home-office

I didn't change the subject. I provided you with the bigger picture (since you raised the subject). Anyway, good luck with the application.

Yeah that's totally gotta be the reason .

I guess they didn't get jealous because they had no feelings for you .

Like many "influencers", she was probably looking to be offended.

It's quite funny to see them. I've seen quite a few youngish farang couples in Cowboy gogos, the women always come in with a superior look on their face and the guys pretend to be disinterested. Within about 15 minutes the guy is really enjoying himself and the girl is looking moody. Then they leave. I really don't know why they bother.

Actually I am. If there weren't so many illegals arriving and using up public funds while simultaneously causing anti immigration sentiment in the populace then the government would be less likely to crack down on those taking the legal route like yourself. Like I always said, I have no problem with legal immigration and I wish you all the best with the application. Illegal immigration causes problems for everyone.

What's the minimum income requirement for people turning up in a dinghy claiming asylum?

Actually I said it depends on the circumstances. 18600 with no rent to pay is doable. 18600 with rent to pay is pretty much impossible. After tax that 18000 is about 16000. I rent out a small 2 up 2 down end terrace in the South West and the tenants pay 15k a year. So that would leave 2 people with 1000 pounds for the whole year before you even pay council tax, water and electricity. Anywhere near London that rent would be at least 50% more. In those circumstances it is clearly not enough. Agree. They should do more than factor in only income but then it gets complicated with things like home owners with mortgages, location, household debt etc. They have to draw the line somewhere. It seems they have got to the point where you are better of turning up at Dover in a dinghy than doing it legally. They should focus on the fake asylum seekers complaining that the Wifi isn't fast enough in their free accomodation.

I don't think 18600 is enough for 2 people, although it depends on the circumstances. For example, if you own your own house then I guess 2 people could just about get by on that but it would be a stretch. They should probably make the rule a bit more sophisticated to take account of non cash assets like house ownership, also the place of residence since living in London is way more expensive than living in somewhere like Birmingham. No way that 2 people with rent to pay could survive on 18600 living in London, it wouldn't even cover rent.

Hunter Biden, the gift that keeps on giving. Well, they say that children are a reflection of the parents. Never more true.

In your circumstances (which are none of my business) I suspect you would meet the financial requirements based on savings, combined income etc. This is clearly aimed at people who bring their partners to the UK with no way of supporting them and expect the state to bail them out. As always, when the government cracks down on people abusing the system a few get caught in the net. That is unfortunate but unavoidable. It's another consquence of the "do gooders" doing more harm than good with their "everyone is welcome" virtue signalling without careful consideration of the economic impact to good, hard working people like you and your family. As for the unemployed, I would drastically reduce benefits for people healthy enough to work so they are essentially forced to work. I would use the money saved to help those who genuinely cannot work and therefore need assistance.

Pedantry of the highest order once again. They belong to the sovereign for the duration of the reign. Secondly, tourists love the Royals, if they are going to visit castles without a monarch they may as well go to DisneyWorld and have a photo with Sleeping Beauty. Finally, That Guardian article is hyperbole. The monies were split between charity and upgrades to real estate and is a tiny percentage of the 1.7 Billion quoted. The Royals make plenty of money for the country as well as perform a role, the opinons of envious Americans are of no interest to us.

Yes, hence they are no longer killing anyone. Now they open hospitals and raise money for charity and the UK.

I would agree that it's diffficult to quantify but let's say it was 50% of that figure, it still means they pay for themselves several times over. This "racism" row is just an excuse to bash the Royal Family because people don't like them. There is absolutely no evidence of this racism. When i ask people for evidence on this thread they basically say "there isn't any evidence but I believe it anyway". Once again it appears that the demand for racism far outweighs the supply .

How have I lost the argument when I have provided links to show that they bring in more revenue to the country than they cost? That is an entirely logical economic argument. All you seem to have to back up your argument is that they have a lot of inherited wealth and you don't like the success of their forefathers (I'm guessing all our family trees have some skeletons if you look back far enough) which led me to my logical conclusion that a lot of the objections to the family (not just you but generally speaking so try not to take it so personally) are rooted in envy. In my experience people who are genuinely happy with their lot do not look over their neighbours fence and complain about what they have and how they got it.