Positive step by Starmer, with the move toward ensuring any migrant to England has to have a high standard of English to be allowed to stay. Step in the right direction in terms of integration.
I'll be checking your grammar and spelling in your future posts, then ! Should i forward my colleague's emails to immigration ? Not sure he has heard of punctuation !
Good luck with convincing people to take down a statue of Churchill. Yes, he was a racist and a strikebreaker (ask the South Wales miners) but the affection he is held in by the British people is because of his opposition to the appeasement of Hitler and his charismatic leadership in the Second World War. By the way, Edward Colston owned no slaves himself and did a huge amount of good for the city of Bristol and its citizens. There is always more than one side to every story.
The potential flaw in that plan is that as a result of our historical empire building English is taught in many, many countries as a second language and, imo, this is one of the main reasons why so many migrants choose to come to the UK. Sure it will have some impact but where does that fit with the human rights of a genuine asylum seeker. Seems to me like Starmer is trying to appear tougher on migrants in order to appease Reform supporters.
Both. But the former is as a result of the latter. To talk about removing statues of Churchill is a nonsense.
Put it this way, Gandhi thought it was outrageous that the British Empire put Africans and Indians at the same level. He also supported the oppressive caste system of India. But people rightly think that overall he was a good egg, and his myriad accomplishments overcome any time-based awkward views he may have had. The same is true of Churchill. Or basically anybody in history. To judge people historically by the standards of today is silly.
William Shakespeare's Shylock is said to reinforce negative stereotypes about Jewish people (anti-semitism was rife in Elizabethan England) but that doesn't diminish his achievements as the greatest writer of all time.
Yes, he was. And after he was a world changing resounding success at one of the most difficult times in history. Fergie didn’t start too well at United either, and he was tricky with his players in a way that would be very much frowned upon now. Stop being silly!
I agree about judging people from the past by the standards of today. To do otherwise is rwally poor history. For me , Churchill did alot thst was immoral even by the standards of his own time. I love history and am a big reader of books on this subject. Attempts to revalue historical figures in a new light is not always successful. How can you revalue soneone as wicked King John ? I think Churchill will always be fascinated as he had a checkered life that went from saving the West from tyranny whilst also subjecting the working class and Asians to the same measures he fought against in 1940. People forget he was kicked out by thw people in the fhrst general election after the end of the war. The negatives outweigh the positives.
Agree generally, though hard disagree on your final sentence. I’ve also written to Kier to have you deported with the spelling hash you just threw out!
He really really wasn't. ****e tactician, pretty poor politician, but Wicked? Nah, that's a Victorian overlay.
