Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2023 20:41:55 GMT
The Bill which went through Parliament during the Second World War applied conscription to men up to the age of 40 on "British Subjects" from Great Britain and The Isle Of Man only, it did not apply to British subjects in the colonies or to British subjects in Northern Ireland. But they were not in the colonies they were in Britain and as such according to you they were identical British subjects and should have had identical responsibilities as well as rights. Why would parliament exclude them from service if they did not accept in principle that British subjects were not the same and what they were depended on where they were from. Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 21:54:12 GMT
But they were not in the colonies they were in Britain and as such according to you they were identical British subjects and should have had identical responsibilities as well as rights. Why would parliament exclude them from service if they did not accept in principle that British subjects were not the same and what they were depended on where they were from. Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects Indeed the NI situation was such that the antipathy between two communities could not be reconciled with conscription. What special conditions existed as regards the Windrush generation that excluded them from National Service? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 1, 2023 4:55:01 GMT
My aunt was a Windrush immigrant. They were offered numerous opportunities to apply for British citizenship in what was essentially a rubber stamping exercise. My aunt filled in the forms and got her citizenship. Meanwhile, some of her friends and relatives didn't bother and for multiple decades they kept their original nationalities and then found that as non UK nationals they had no right to be here. Well, who knew? 🙄 Victims. My arse. BUT .... every one of those people who arrived on The Empire Windrush WERE UK Nationals ( as you put it ), but in reality there is no such thing as a "UK National", only a "British Citizen". All Jamaican people who arrived in the UK from the time of the first arrivals on The Empire Windrush in 1948, up until 1962 were British people, all of whom had the right to come to the UK to live. So could I perhaps ask .... WHY would a British person need to have proof that they had a right to live in the UK ? I personally do not hold a UK passport, but my birth is registered in a Yorkshire registry office, just as every one of those people would be registered in a Jamaican registry office. They were picked on, and victimised by a quasi-racist Tory government because of only one reason - they were black There have been seven Labour governments since the Empire Windrush landed. So they must've also been picked on, and victimised by quasi-racist Labour governments because of only one reason - they were black Well either that or you're talking nonsense. As usual. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 1, 2023 5:51:15 GMT
Windrush was indeed a scandal, there is no way the government should have paid compensation, it's absolutely scandalous. The ungrateful gits weren't forced to come to this country it was their choice. The benevolent British government offered them a chance at a new life in a new country. Then years later they demand compensation! The ungrateful gits should have been deported not given compensation. If you're representative of a Farage supporter, Coutts will have no difficulty demonstrating in court that they disassociated from him for fear of reputational damage. Well whatever you think Coutts have now offered to reinstate both of his accounts. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 1, 2023 6:00:24 GMT
Ouch!
That's a big lose for the Farage haters.
And a massive climb down by the bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Aug 1, 2023 9:06:53 GMT
Ouch! That's a big lose for the Farage haters. And a massive climb down by the bank. LOLLLL!!! The bank was always going to climb down. The government has a massive stake in NatWest. As soon as they came on board, a reinstatement was inevitable. The manfrog is going to ask for compensation for his legal fees and the time he spent on this matter. That's not a profit, Squeaky!!! It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the squillions you predicted!  It would have been worth 100 times that just to hear the manfrog repeatedly described as a disingenuous grifter in the media. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 1, 2023 10:05:33 GMT
But they were not in the colonies they were in Britain and as such according to you they were identical British subjects and should have had identical responsibilities as well as rights. Why would parliament exclude them from service if they did not accept in principle that British subjects were not the same and what they were depended on where they were from. Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects Being a 'British subject' or born a British subject has never come with the 'right of abode' so no they didn't have any rights to be here . Those rights are reserved for British subjects born in the UK , for British subjects who have at least one parent born in the UK or for British subjects who are women and are married to a British subject born in the UK . Various immigration acts over the years have either tightened or relaxed other areas of immigration law but the above has remained the rule for British subjects All British subjects may become British citizens by registration after residing in the UK for 5 years which is where those invited during windrush come in . They needed to register . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 1, 2023 10:25:56 GMT
And in many cases, despite multiple invitations to do so, they didn't bother.
Victims? My arse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2023 17:21:29 GMT
Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects Being a 'British subject' or born a British subject has never come with the 'right of abode' so no they didn't have any rights to be here . Those rights are reserved for British subjects born in the UK , for British subjects who have at least one parent born in the UK or for British subjects who are women and are married to a British subject born in the UK . Various immigration acts over the years have either tightened or relaxed other areas of immigration law but the above has remained the rule for British subjects All British subjects may become British citizens by registration after residing in the UK for 5 years which is where those invited during windrush come in . They needed to register . Another load of made-up rubbish An Act Of Parliament entitled the British Nationality Act 1948 designated (1) citizens of the United Kingdom and (2) citizens of United Kingdom colonies as ONE SINGLE NATIONALITY WITH EQUAL RIGHTS, and that status was known as "CUKC" ( Citizen or citizens of The United Kingdon and Colonies ). READ THIS CAREFULLY AND LET IT SINK IN >> CUKC applied to all citizens of all British colonies in the Caribbean including Jamaicans, from where the SS Empire Windrush made its journey from with migrants. People from Jamica were no different to people from Scotland, Cornwall or The Falkland Islands, they needed no permission to come to England and live, they were British citizens. Jamaicans remained British citizens until 1962 when Jamaica became an independent nation CUKC was not ammended or altered until 1982 .... the following is copied from a Home Office flow chart >>> This flow chart enables you to assess whether a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies had the right of abode on 31 December 1982. Before using this chart, you should establish that the claimant was, on 31 December 1982, a CUKC. Was the claimant a CUKC (see note E) by birth, adoption, YES naturalisation or registration (see note A) in the UK (see note B)? ____________ Yes ______ Claimant has the right of abode on 31st December. This means that all citizens of remaining British overseas territories ( formerly known as colonies ) such as The Falkland Islands, remaining Caribbean overseas territories, St Helena, etc have the same rights as citizens of the UK, and can live and / or work in the UK without approval. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 1, 2023 20:59:38 GMT
Being a 'British subject' or born a British subject has never come with the 'right of abode' so no they didn't have any rights to be here . Those rights are reserved for British subjects born in the UK , for British subjects who have at least one parent born in the UK or for British subjects who are women and are married to a British subject born in the UK . Various immigration acts over the years have either tightened or relaxed other areas of immigration law but the above has remained the rule for British subjects All British subjects may become British citizens by registration after residing in the UK for 5 years which is where those invited during windrush come in . They needed to register . Another load of made-up rubbish An Act Of Parliament entitled the British Nationality Act 1948 designated (1) citizens of the United Kingdom and (2) citizens of United Kingdom colonies as ONE SINGLE NATIONALITY WITH EQUAL RIGHTS, and that status was known as "CUKC" ( Citizen or citizens of The United Kingdon and Colonies ). READ THIS CAREFULLY AND LET IT SINK IN >> CUKC applied to all citizens of all British colonies in the Caribbean including Jamaicans, from where the SS Empire Windrush made its journey from with migrants. People from Jamica were no different to people from Scotland, Cornwall or The Falkland Islands, they needed no permission to come to England and live, they were British citizens. Jamaicans remained British citizens until 1962 when Jamaica became an independent nation CUKC was not ammended or altered until 1982 .... the following is copied from a Home Office flow chart >>> This flow chart enables you to assess whether a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies had the right of abode on 31 December 1982. Before using this chart, you should establish that the claimant was, on 31 December 1982, a CUKC. Was the claimant a CUKC (see note E) by birth, adoption, YES naturalisation or registration (see note A) in the UK (see note B)? ____________ Yes ______ Claimant has the right of abode on 31st December. This means that all citizens of remaining British overseas territories ( formerly known as colonies ) such as The Falkland Islands, remaining Caribbean overseas territories, St Helena, etc have the same rights as citizens of the UK, and can live and / or work in the UK without approval. So why were they excused National Service? In some way they must have been different to be excluded in the main from that responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 2, 2023 12:50:59 GMT
Being a 'British subject' or born a British subject has never come with the 'right of abode' so no they didn't have any rights to be here . Those rights are reserved for British subjects born in the UK , for British subjects who have at least one parent born in the UK or for British subjects who are women and are married to a British subject born in the UK . Various immigration acts over the years have either tightened or relaxed other areas of immigration law but the above has remained the rule for British subjects All British subjects may become British citizens by registration after residing in the UK for 5 years which is where those invited during windrush come in . They needed to register . Another load of made-up rubbish An Act Of Parliament entitled the British Nationality Act 1948 designated (1) citizens of the United Kingdom and (2) citizens of United Kingdom colonies as ONE SINGLE NATIONALITY WITH EQUAL RIGHTS, and that status was known as "CUKC" ( Citizen or citizens of The United Kingdon and Colonies ). Hardly made up Sid its immigration law though I will conceed in 1948 we were all CUKC .However even back in the early days just after the war people coming here from the colonies were told to register . You couldn't just jump out from behind a wall on Brixton high street in 1976 and say you have been here for 20 years , you had to have proof that that was the case . They may have had equal rights but being equal came with responsability's like proving who you were . Britons could prove who they were because we were documented (birth certs , school records , census ect ) The migrants had nothing , most didnt even have passports so they HAD TO REGISTER . If they didnt then the were STUPID . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 13:31:03 GMT
Another load of made-up rubbish An Act Of Parliament entitled the British Nationality Act 1948 designated (1) citizens of the United Kingdom and (2) citizens of United Kingdom colonies as ONE SINGLE NATIONALITY WITH EQUAL RIGHTS, and that status was known as "CUKC" ( Citizen or citizens of The United Kingdon and Colonies ). Hardly made up Sid its immigration law though I will conceed in 1948 we were all CUKC .However even back in the early days just after the war people coming here from the colonies were told to register Oh no they were not . You couldn't just jump out from behind a wall on Brixton high street in 1976 and say you have been here for 20 years , you had to have proof that that was the case . As I personally do not have a UK passport, how do I prove that I am British ?, could it possibly be via a birth certificate ?. Do you not think that a person from the Caribbean who was born a British subject in a British colony would either have their birth registered or hold a birth certificate. ? They may have had equal rights but being equal came with responsability's like proving who you were . Britons could prove who they were because we were documented (birth certs , school records , census ect ) The migrants had nothing , most didnt even have passports so they HAD TO REGISTER . If they didnt then the were STUPID . Your statement above is both rubbish and very condascending - "responsibilities" ?, these people had no more responsibilities than anyone else born a British Subject, including someone from Glasgow, Yorkshire or Barbados ... they were all classed as the same, and equal.
Can you prove that they had to register ? or provide a link / evidence ? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 2, 2023 13:33:12 GMT
But they were not in the colonies they were in Britain and as such according to you they were identical British subjects and should have had identical responsibilities as well as rights. Why would parliament exclude them from service if they did not accept in principle that British subjects were not the same and what they were depended on where they were from. Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects If you are born in NI you are a British Citizen, however if you so wish you can opt for Irish Citizenship instead |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 15:01:49 GMT
Are people from Northern Ireland British ? I think the answer is YES they are, but they were excluded from conscription, you cannot get around the FACT that most Caribbean migrants who came to this country in the aftermath of the Second World War up until the 1960s were BRITISH PEOPLE before they set off. You can wriggle and twist and try as much as you want - they had every right to be here, with or without passports, and with or without documentation of proof. They were born British subjects If you are born in NI you are a British Citizen, however if you so wish you can opt for Irish Citizenship instead Correct - and if you were born in Jamaica from the end of the Second World War until independence in 1962, you were British. So, let me return back to my original point which was ... Why should a British person, someone born British, have to prove that they are indeed British. The Windrush Scandal was a scandal which was 100% the fault of the British government |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 15:06:54 GMT
Britons could prove who they were because we were documented (birth certs , school records , census ect ) you dont know what you are talking about. On this point , there is no british birth certificate , no british school records , and the census is conducted in scotland seperate.
Pedantic point , but true irrespective , and something ive told you before. The uk as far as im aware is the only state in europe , if not the world that doesnt issue a birth certificate , because it is a multi national state and its constituent nations (except wales which is lumped in legally with england) do.
|
|
