|
31 Oct 03 - 04:32 PM (#1045491) Subject: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks I need some information for a paper-to clarify a couple of points: 1. Is there a common (and polite) name for Indians living in the UK...the equivalent of Anglo-Indians, except the reverse? 2. Are immigrants to the UK from former Commonwealth nations automatically citizens, or is there an application/approval process? 3. Are children born in the UK automatically citizens, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents? |
|
31 Oct 03 - 05:56 PM (#1045522) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: CraigS Anglo-Indians are left-overs from mixed marriages in the colonial days - they are Indian people who generally speak Hindi, but have European names and are mainly Christians. The polite name for an Indian is Indian. An Indian is not ethnic to Britain because, despite common usage, "ethnic" means "born in a place". There are three states of British citizenship which apply to those from former British colonies; one is that the person has all the rights of a native Briton (and therefore is a citizen of the EEC), the second is that the person has rights to take up residence in Britain (but not the EEC),the third is that the person has British citizenship but no right of residence in Britain. What people have to go through to take up residence in Britain depends on which residence status they have. A child born in Britain is not automatically a British citizen, and its residence status depends on the status of its parents. In many cases, such a child is in a position to choose its own nationality - I know of two brothers born in Birmingham, one of whom is British, and the other Ghanaian. |
|
31 Oct 03 - 06:10 PM (#1045527) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Someone born in England with Indian parents - the appropriate term, if needed, would be a British Indian. Or the term British Asian is also used, which would also include people with roots in Pakistan, or Bangla Desh or Ceylon. |
|
31 Oct 03 - 09:55 PM (#1045603) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks Thank you...that's helpful. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:17 AM (#1045649) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: LadyJean Young Premchand, in Swissvale, PA, had friends in school who wondered about his unusual name, and his dark complexion. "My father's an Indian," young Premchand said. So, his friends all came to his house to see his father's warbonnet, and bow and arrow. Some terms are a little confusing. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 05:07 AM (#1045701) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: GUEST Most Muslims will be from Pakistan or Bangladesh, not India. Sikhs are usually referred to as Sikhs. You will sometimes hear Hindus referred to as "East African" or "Ugandan" Asians as the community there was expelled by Idi Amin and make up a significant proportion of the Hindu community here. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 02:25 PM (#1045887) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Marje The term commonly accepted as polite in Britain at the moment is the somewhat inaccurate "Asian". This usually covers people of Indian and Pakistant descent, and it's a term they often use themselves. I think the problem with the more obvious words is that "Indian" suggests American Indian to many people. Also, the people in question are more likely to be Pakistani, and the term "Paki" is now often used by racists as a term of abuse, like "nigger". Thus the term has become tainted with these racist overtones. "Asian" ia pretty silly because there are also lots of British people of Chinese/Hong Kong origin, who are also "Asian" in the geographical sense. These groups are increasingly being referred to as "oriental", which is also a bit vague.... |
|
01 Nov 03 - 02:56 PM (#1045901) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Uncle_DaveO Indio-Anglans? Dave Oesterreich |
|
01 Nov 03 - 04:40 PM (#1045948) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Most Muslims will be from Pakistan or Bangladesh, not India. True enough - but the Muslim population of India is in fact not that much lower than that of Pakistan or Bangla Desh. This CIA website is a good place to check figures like that. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 05:13 PM (#1045961) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: weerover Dave O and McGrath in postings above repeat the (frequent, but irritating) mistake of equating England with Britain. Personally, I believe the sooner it ceases to be a mistake the better. wr |
|
01 Nov 03 - 05:41 PM (#1045971) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks Weerover, they were responding to my original request, which was specifically for information about Indians in England, for a paper I'm writing on English identity. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 06:33 PM (#1045994) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow The thing is, people just don't seem to use the term "English" in this context. So, for example, you have people saying "British Asians" or "Black British", but never, so far as I have ever heard, never "English Asians" or Black English". It's not logical. If you ask people in England their nationality, regardless of their ethnic background, it's a toss-up whether they say "I'm English" or "I'm British". Assuming they were either/both. "English identity" is not a straightforward thing. |
|
02 Nov 03 - 05:38 AM (#1046146) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: weerover My point was that the terms English and British have been used interchangeably in this thread as they often are elsewhere. wr |
|
02 Nov 03 - 12:08 PM (#1046251) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Marje Looking back over the thread, it seems to me that most of us have not used the terms interchangeably, but have chosen the term that most accurately expresses what we want to say. But I take your point, there is still a careless tendency for the English to assume that Britain and England are the same thing. I can't believe it when I hear BBC presenters speculate as to whether Charles will ever be "King of England". (Not without some drastic political changes, he won't.) It might not seem that important to some, but on an international forum like this, it can only cause confusion among those of other nationalities if the English don't appear to realise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are British but not English. How can we expect other nations to understand this if the English still get it wrong? |
|
02 Nov 03 - 12:19 PM (#1046254) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Amos Marje: If Charles were to accede to the throne, would he not be then King of England? There's some fine distinction that is being made that escapes me, and I apologize for being dense. Can you clarify the political picture for me? Is Great Britain the monarchy over which the Queen presides at present? And England a part thereof? Who is doing what and with which and to whom over there? A |
|
02 Nov 03 - 01:22 PM (#1046280) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow The Queen has all kind of royal titles, such as Queen of Australia and Canada and various other places, but "Queen of Great Britain" is not one of them. This would be because officially there isn't any country with that name - it's the name of the island on which England Scotland and Wales are perched. "The United Kingdom" is the term used, to include those countries, and also (for the time being) Northern Ireland. (But not the Isle of Man.) All very bizarre. Including the fact that she's officially called Queen Elizabeth II, but there's never been a Queen Elizabeth the First in most of the places she's supposed to be queen of, such Australia or Canada or Scotland... The Scots used to go round blowing up pillar boxes (post boxes)saying EIIR, for that very reason, but they seem to have given up doing that. |
|
02 Nov 03 - 03:07 PM (#1046341) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: weerover I certainly would not advocate the blowing up of pillar boxes (or anything else in public places), but part of the reason the Scots stopped doing so is that someone somewhere realised that they had a point, and, in Scotland at least, EIIR became replaced by ER. wr |
|
02 Nov 03 - 03:07 PM (#1046342) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: weerover ...and apologies for thread creep. wr |
|
02 Nov 03 - 04:09 PM (#1046366) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Willie-O more thread creep: as a Canadian citizen (a current, not former, Commonwealth nation) with one parent and two grandparents born in Scotland, I did the paperwork many years ago to get my certificate of patriation for right of abode in the UK. (After all these years, I've never even visited let alone lived there). According to Craig's knowledgable explanation, it appears that that doesn't entitle me to residence, or presumably employment, in other EEC countries...I had assumed that it would, there certainly isn't much border control in any case, n'est-ce pas? Anyone know where I can get the direct info on this? Thanks W-O |
|
02 Nov 03 - 06:01 PM (#1046393) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Noreen There are at least five other categories of British 'citizenship' or 'nationality', in addition to the full British citizenship which entitiles the holder to a full British passport and the associated EU (not EEC any more!) privileges. UK Passport Service : Who is eligible? These categories were defined under the British Nationality Act 1981, whose major effect was to restrict the rights of people from former colonies and commonwealth citizens to residency in the UK. British High Commission- Canada: Passports: Who is eligible for a UK passport? Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Applying for British Nationality |
|
02 Nov 03 - 06:13 PM (#1046400) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not sure about the patrial rules for the UK, they seem to change them every now and again. But anyone with a grandparent born in Ireland - at any rate in the 26 counties, I'm not sure about the rest - is entitled to full Irish citizenship, and can live and work in any part of the European Union. (And they can't change that without amending the constitution.) |
|
02 Nov 03 - 07:03 PM (#1046429) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks |
|
03 Nov 03 - 04:39 AM (#1046615) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Hrothgar I do remember that when Idi Amin was kicking Asians out of Uganda around 1971, there was a hell of a stink when the Asians realised that the British passports they treasured did not give them any right of entry to Britain/England. Cudgelling memory - were they "B" passports or "D" passports? |
|
03 Nov 03 - 07:14 AM (#1046683) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Marje OK, if you like, the Queen is Queen of England. Equally, she's Queen of Wales and Queen of Scotland, but I don't think you're likely to hear her referred to by these titles. My point was that the English often refer to her as Queen of England with a kind of vague and lazy assumption that this more or less covers the other parts of the United Kingdom (the state that all these countries belong to) as well. The habit is a lot less prevalent than it once was, but it's offensive to the smaller nations, and confusing for foreigners. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 08:22 AM (#1046714) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: greg stephens The complexities of the situation are beautifully exemplified by the marje/macgrath exchange on the "Queen of England" situation. Yes, Elizabeth is the Queen of England. Yes, it can be sloppy and offensive and misleading to refer to her as "Queen of England". Hpw to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements is one of the joys of the British/English (lack of)constitution. And another thing, McGrath. You refer to Wales as a country earlier. All the best pedants will quickly point out that Wales isnt a country. It's a principalty.(Don't ask me what the difference is). And what is the Isle of Man? Or Jersey? Anybody gort any bright ideas? And to get back to Indians and Asians...I have to fill out a lot of ethnic monitoring forms from time to time. The ctirria vary from form to form, but it is certainly true that in some systems of classification that you have to conform to, Indians, bangladeshis and Pakistanis are indeed Asians, but Chinese arent, even thought hey live in Asia. And quite what Kurds are, with whom I have a lot of dealings, I dont know. I put them down as "other". Interestingly, English, Welsh, and Scottish(not to mention German and French) are "white" on a form I saw recently, but Irish are "Irish". What a job,eh, sitting on your arse on some equality committee or other and making up this drivel. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 08:23 AM (#1046716) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: GUEST As to the status of Canadians re British citizenship and residency.. Canadans have no status( I am not sure why). If one or the other of your immmediate ancestors was British you may apply for limited status. However if gour immediate ancestors were not British(and I do MEAN British) you are not entitled to any benefit. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 08:25 AM (#1046717) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: GUEST I really do hate this double barrelled stuff. If a person is born in England...why aren't ehy simply English. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 08:50 AM (#1046740) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Wales is a principality rather than a kingdom - but obviously you don't have to be a kingdom to be a country, as our American Mudcatters demonstrate. Liechtenstein, for example, is also a principality, and it has a seat at the UN. The Isle of Man and the various Channel Islands are "British crown dependencies", and I note the "CIA World Factbook" counts them as countries. But it doesn't count Wales - or England or Scotland for that matter. Is the United Kingdom the only nation to go in for these second and third class passports? |
|
03 Nov 03 - 10:21 AM (#1046796) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean James the sixth of Scotland was crowned James the first of Great Britain. However he is always seen as the first of England. All monarchs have taken English titles:see William the third and fourth, which should have been the second and third of Great Britain. Edward the seventh should have been Edward the first. Why say James the first but Edward the seventh? The same rule should apply to Edward the eighth and the present Queen who should be second of England and first of Great Britian (it doesn't matter whether you take 1603 (Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England) or 1707 (Union of the Parliaments of Scotland and England) as the starting point for common titles, the fact remains that English titles, not common titles, are deemed to be correct. The word 'Anglo' is used to mean English as in Anglo/Scottish football match but British as in Anglo/Irish Agreement and a further point, if you look at The Times web page, they have separate entries for Britain and Scotland! Confusing? |
|
03 Nov 03 - 10:29 AM (#1046805) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: greg stephens This CIA Fact book sounds a good'un. Are Jersey, Guernsey and Sark one country, or three separate ones? I stand corrected about Wales, I thought it couldnt be a country because it was a principality. I'm delighted to find you can be both. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM (#1046809) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: greg stephens What's San Morino? Have the CIA judged on that? |
|
03 Nov 03 - 10:41 AM (#1046814) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: GUEST,Skipjack K8 Miz Lillian Carter was sent by then President Carter to represent the USA at the funeral of Indira Ghandi. She is purported to have returned to Jimmy with these words. "Jimmy, them Injun's sho' have come a long way since Wounded Knee" So Alan Coren reported, anyway. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 11:34 AM (#1046842) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Yup, San Marino is in that CIA list - and also in the UN. Jersey is counted as one country, and Alderney and Sark are included in with Guernsey. (And none of the "British Overseas Dependencies" are in the UN.) But remember, this is the CIA, and everyone knows they get confused at times. For example the list of countries includes the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian and Arctic Oceans, though not the Mediterranean. For all that it's a handy site to bookmark. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:37 AM (#1047581) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Les from Hull On the subject of second and third class passports - is there a similar arrangement for citizens of former French, Italian, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish etc colonies? What about current colonies (I know it's not PC to call them this - overseas dependencies sounds better) like the Falklands Islands (UK), Puerto Rico, American Samoa (USA) etc? I understand that the French ones were incorporated as part of France (overseas departements) so the EU includes such places as St Pierre et Michelon. It's a confusing world, isn't it? |
|
04 Nov 03 - 12:28 PM (#1047736) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: HuwG Describing a country as a "Principality" does not necessarily mean that it does not have independent status; it means that its head of state is a Prince. A Kingdom isn't necessarily independent, though I'd have to cudgel my brains a little to come up with an example. Perhaps some of Napoleon Bonaparte's artificial client states ? Monaco is a Principality, as is Liechtenstein. Luxembourg is a mere Grand Duchy. I have heard a few laughs about the CIA site. Countries, being full of people, with all their idiosyncacies, do not fit neatly into bean-counters' categories. I recall that it gave Britain's "Date of independence" as 1803. [Act of Union of Britain and Ireland]. Independent from whom, one asks. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 12:49 PM (#1047761) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow There's the Kingdom of Kerry... |
|
04 Nov 03 - 12:53 PM (#1047768) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow And less frivolously, there were the Kingdoms of Bavaria and of Saxony |
|
04 Nov 03 - 03:51 PM (#1047906) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: sian, west wales Willie-O, I have one parent and 3 grandparents born in the UK. I was born in Canada (Niagara Penn.). I moved to Wales in 1980 and can work, vote and I even have a UK passport now. At the time, patriality for Canadians hinged on having a father or grandfather who is/was a UK citizen. oops. Sorry: 'subject'. Which I did. My now ex-hubbie could get in, work and vote because he was married to me. 6 months after we divorced, Home Office gave him notice to quit. ie he was deported. (This is where I tend to break out in raucus laughter, but I'm trying to be more sedate as I get older...) So - they do keep track. I think the rules do change from time to time, so I try not to do anything too outrageous in terms of political/social protest just to stay below the Home Office radar.... (Joking: I'm really very well behaved. -ish.) sian |
|
04 Nov 03 - 04:32 PM (#1047931) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean Interestingly, England (and Scotland) lost their independence before America gained hers! |
|
04 Nov 03 - 04:36 PM (#1047935) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: GUEST,MMario well - rulers in both countries had been attempting that result for generations - the independence of the 13 colonies was just circumstance. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 04:46 PM (#1047942) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: lady penelope 'Ere Sian, now that's what I call closure!! The english identity - it's almost an oxymoron. In general most people find it very hard to describe english culture at all. On the other hand,there are deffinately things which are regarded as quintessentialy english. Mmmm, let us know if you figure anything out Art.... TTFN Lady P. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 05:03 PM (#1047946) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Gareth HuwG - Shame on you ! Have you forgotten the Kingdom of Morganwwg. Who's allegency to the Principality of Wales was frail, at best. Hmmm ! Now theres a thought, self rule for Morganwwg. No more S4C. Gareth |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:33 PM (#1048134) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks Lady P: there is a lot of literature out on the topic. Most of it seems to be written by sociologists or historians (which is where Im coming from) who are asking the question "is there an English identity, as there is a Scottish or Welsh one, separate from a British identity?" |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:48 PM (#1048140) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow The truth is the English may often say "British", but generally it's actually "English" that they mean. I incline to say they aren't actually thinking in terms of Scots or Welsh, least of all Northern Irish. But more local identities are more important a lot of time - London, or Liverpool, or Yorkshire. And interestingly enough, it seems to me, that even people who might incline towards racism when talking about people being English, and feel or say that people from ethnic minorities were not really English, would be unlikely to say that they weren't really Londoners etc. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 05:07 AM (#1048269) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean I think McGrath is right, it is a mindset. If you ask any (most?)Scots 'what is the largest city in the south' the answer will probably be London. If you ask an Englishman 'what is the largest city in the north' the answer will probably Newcastle or Manchester. It is very common now that regions of England are meant when we hear or read 'the north east, the north, the northwest etc.,. BBC from the north is from northern England. What chance of being European when thinking in British geographical terms is impossible? |
|
05 Nov 03 - 06:05 AM (#1048299) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow I think someone worked out that that the geographical centre of the United Kingdom is round about Warrington. But they never call Cheshire a Midlands county. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 06:59 AM (#1048314) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Trevor Bet you're glad you asked eh Art! |
|
05 Nov 03 - 07:37 AM (#1048333) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Willie-O I looked up the info via the links Noreen helpfully provided. FWIW. It is sure fascinating the categories of British semi-citizenry, and they change them when they feel like it. When I got my "certificate of entitlement of abode" in 1983, I could have received it if I was a Commonwealth citizen with just one grandparent born in the UK (long as I could prove it). Nowadays, a grandparent doesn't rate. But it seems I hit the jackpot by getting my papers long ago, since the High Commission website states "that you are entirely free from United Kingdom immigration control; you do not need to obtain the permission of an Immigration Officer to enter the UK, and you may live and work there without restriction." All this without any kind of British citizenship, the certificate is in my Canadian passport. Nowadays, if you had a grandparent from the UK, you can get a kind of second-class entitlement of abode, if they feel like giving it to you--it only lasts for four years, which seems pretty odd....long enough to get a bachelor's degree and you can work in a chip shop on weekends, then back you go! UK Ancestry I guess all immigration systems have pages of definitions like this, eh! My head just goes spinny about halfway down. And it appears that if I do move to Britain, only one of my wives can join me there... Willie-O |
|
05 Nov 03 - 08:52 AM (#1048370) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: artbrooks Lets see...I have 2 great-grandparents and my wife has two grandparents from what would become the UK...I guess my kids are stuck being Yanks. Shucks. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM (#1048422) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Irish grandparents are much more useful... |
|
05 Nov 03 - 10:40 AM (#1048433) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean Tell that to Tony Blair! |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:15 AM (#1048457) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Well, he's a Scot, though he pretends he's English. (And I think most Scots like it better that way.) |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:39 AM (#1048472) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Green Man Re Guernsey and Jersy etc. The Islands are 'British Protectorates' They are outside of the EEC and residency rights require you to have been born there. Here's the kicker. If you have enough money you can live there. Guernsey requires you to be native or to purchase housing over a certain rateable value (LOTS). Jersey lets you live there but you can't own property in your own right unless you have lived there for ten or more years. I am a Guernseyman who has lost the right to return to my place of birth to live because I have lived away from the Islands for a long time. This makes me a displaced person (doesn't it?) I live in Britain and have a British Passport. So unless I can conjure up a couple of hundred thousand for a house I am stuck with Britain. (OH JOY!) |
|
05 Nov 03 - 12:20 PM (#1048494) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Or just about anywhere else in Europe, apart from wheree you come from... |
|
05 Nov 03 - 02:04 PM (#1048557) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean McGrath, wasn't Tony Blair's mum Irish? Or his granny? |
|
05 Nov 03 - 03:14 PM (#1048591) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow Haven't heard that. But I suspect Cherie Blair's likely was. After all she's from Liverpool. (Her father, his father-in-law is actor, wild man, and unreconstructed Old Labour, Tony Booth - which is a fairly hilarious thought.) |
|
05 Nov 03 - 04:22 PM (#1048637) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean My father in law was Tony Blair's father (Leo)'s doctor, when they lived in Durham, but I seem to remember Tony Blair saying his mother was from Ireland. Should be easy to check out. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 05:37 PM (#1048668) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow No luck so far - but what I hadn't know was that Leo Blair was at one time Wecretary of the Young Communist League in Scotland, and later became a Conservative. So there's a family tradition of politcal mobility here. And they emigrated to Australia when Tony was a child, and styed there over three years. So by rights he should have been on Ozzie. As for his mother, she was called Hazel - which is not a common Irish name. But that doesn't mean too much. But I think if he'd had an Irish mother he'd have made use of that fact at some time. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 06:34 PM (#1048729) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean His mother Hazel was born in Ballyshannon according to a google search. Another search says she came from a strongly protestant family in County Donegal. (is Ballyshannon in County Donegal?) |
|
05 Nov 03 - 06:39 PM (#1048732) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow It is - they have a Folk Festival there. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 06:53 PM (#1048743) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Gareth Kevin, I am aware that your mind is wide ranging, but whats this got to do with the thread theme ? Gareth |
|
05 Nov 03 - 07:13 PM (#1048769) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow That's drift for you... (It started drifting this way when we got on to the way Government in Westminster can chop and change passport holders' rights, in a way that couldn't happen with Irish passport holders, who can be anyone with an Irish born grandparent.) |
|
06 Nov 03 - 04:27 AM (#1049019) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: Jim McLean Also, McGrath, Tony Blair's father was adopted by two Glaswegians so he might not have been born in Scotland. Maybe the unwanted son of a refugee! The mind does indeed boggle! |
|
06 Nov 03 - 09:09 PM (#1049630) Subject: RE: BS: Indians in England From: McGrath of Harlow When he's chucked out here, he could go over and stand for the Dáil, as an Irish citizen. I wouldn't fancy his chances too much, but who knows. It'd be a novelty anyway. |