youreavinalaff

Yes, I am aware of who Axel is. I doubt many in USA or Isreal are celebrating.

For the same reasons, his death would not be a reason for celebration.

Two girls were brutally murdered. The murderer is now dead. That doesn't bring the girls back. There's nothing to celebrate

No. That's incorrect. They are not employed by us and we do not give them electric bikes. They work illegally, usually under false ID and working with organised gangs.

I'm just getting warmed up. 🤣🤣🤣

"Wokeness in UK again" as a headline grabber. "Across the pond" used when proven wrong. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Your words, not mine.

No, I don't. I just like to see the facts. All of the facts. Not hand picked bits and pieces to fit someone's agenda.

I'm not God. 🤣🤣🤣

There you go then. You've totally contradicted yourself and you inaccurate, rage bait headline. There's no need for me to direct anything. You are doing a perfectly good job yourself. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

You've also failed to explain John Davidson made ten or more outbursts of which he has apologised. You've also failed to report the outrage at the editors failures to edit these out to protect John. You've also failed to report news channels are supportive of those with "Tic". It's impossible to disrupt a thread that isn't even open for discussion due to it's failure to report correctly. I am showing interest. The issue for you is I'm not showing the interest you want. I'm looking at the whole picture. You are looking at the bits you think you can use for your own agenda.

I have been watching the news, yes. It's all been about how it was missed by some broadcasters, not about John himself. It's quite easy to see that if watched with a balanced mind. You have a history of picking the bits that can start your own agenda. Thats all your OP is doing, once again.

The issue is how it wasn't edited correctly. There were two incidents, that's the issue. John has apologised for his outburst and expressed he was "mortified" by his outburst. The reactions are mixed. Some suggesting he shouldn't have been there, mostly suggesting the editors should have acted quicker, bearing in mind the show was broadcast with sufficient delay. The fact one broadcaster decided to let it be heard, suggests a possible hidden agenda. The word used is a racial slur and should not have been heard. Even you didn't use it in your comment, thankfully. Not woke. Nothing to see here.

The fool is the one with a partner they don't trust.

I arrived in Thailand in 1998, aged 28, to work as an English teacher. Located in Isaan, I loved the place as soon as I'd settled. Laid back, peaceful, great people, fantastic food and a nice cold beer in the village shop. I was not actively looking for a girfriend/wife but with so many lovely ladies around, it was difficult not to. I met my now wife in 2000. We've been together ever since. Lived in Isaan for a further 19 years. Currently in UK to secure finances to retire back in our home in the village. Probably 2030.

Why? Your situation is exactly the same as ours. Our daughter was born in 2002. We were not married. We later married. We have never applied for our daughter's citizenship. We simply applied for a passport. Application accepted. Why not just try for a passport? If you don't want to go that route, submit a UKF form. It can be done online.

You firstly used the phrase "by decent". Then you didn't. That's two totally different situations. Your statement suggesting citizenship is not automatic with one British parent, no mention of "by decent", if the child was born prior to 2006 is false, as I pointed out.

Try now. Complete a UKF form online. From what you've said, there's no reason, now at least, for a refusal.

You've changed your story. Check your comments. First you say "by desent" then you don't, then you do again. You are unnecessarily confusing the situation.

3.

He didn't forget. It doesn't happen.

Our daughter was born in 2002. We weren't officially married until May 2006. There were no issues when applying for our daughter's UK passport. We hadn't even bothered to register her birth at British embassy, even though people seem to think that's a must. Advice now from Gov.UK is to apply using UKF form. It's specifically for those who "would have qualified for citizenship had father been married to mother".

There most certainly was. Our daughter was born in 2002. British father, Thai mother. She is a British Citizen. Passport application was a breeze.

Irrelevant, as you can see if you read the entire comment I quoted.

5555 You've done it again. I don't think theres a reason such as "waffle" for reporting a post.

In that case, I don't understand your comment " one year before she would have automatically have been a British Citizen by virtue of the fact that I am her father." Our daughter was born in 2002 and qualified under that rule.