Where do I send back my passport?

[major_clanger]

Oops. Despite having lived in the UK for all of my forty years, and not only possessing a law degree but having been called to the Bar, I scored only 54% on the Practice UK Citizenship Test. It looks like I'll be joining several of my friends on the boat out.

But..but... this test sucks. I mean it - I have had some training and experience in writing multiple-choice tests, and this one is an absolutely awful example of one of those. Many of the questions (such as the one on how many children there are in the UK) give four very similar answers, any one of which fall within the level of accuracy of knowledge one might reasonably expect (i.e. 'about 20-25% of the total population' for that particular question).

Other questions were wrong. I've filled out a metric shitload of job applications recently, and I was asked for my NI Number far more often than a CV. (Many employers have tailored application forms and expressly do not want CVs.) Some want information that is frankly of historical interest only, such as the exact year when women gained the right to divorce. (That they did, and relatively recently, is important - but surely it's enough to know that it was around 150 years ago, rather than say between the Wars or when the Bill of Rights was enacted.)

And then there were questions that required an exactly correct answer. I've studied EU law as part of my legal training and recently did a major pro bono project that involved me going over documents from the various major organs of the Union. And I managed to get 'Council of Europe' rather than 'Council of the European Union' as the final answer.

This test is not, to use a favourite phrase of our Government, Fit For Purpose.

Comments

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

I was more than a little shocked to discover this morning that free speech doesn't apply to me. But, of course, he doesn't mean nice middle class Irish women, who happen to be resident in the UK, or at least, that's what he'd like us to believe.

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

The one about "public" election thoroughly confused me. What are "public" elections? As a resident I can vote for the local elections; as a EU citizen I can elect (as I did) to vote for the British MEP. I cannot vote for the Parliament - I had no idea that Irish and Australians could! I still find it mightily hard to believe it!

[timill]

The Irish have grandfathered rights from when they were a part of the UK.

Didn't know about the Australians, though. I wonder about Canada?

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

I believe all commonwealth citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK elections.

[alexmc.livejournal.com]

That is my understanding too

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Yup. Full list of what countries this covers here:

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx

[alexmc.livejournal.com]

I only knew about Australians from having one in the house :-)

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

I think the key word was 'all' public elections. As you rightly say EU citizens can vote in local and European Parliament Elections but not in national ones and that was the 'trick' of the question.

Irish people are treated in British in almost all cases as if we are British. It's a hangover from when independance happened and we ceased being full citizens automatically - to do otherwise would have created a huge group of people would have lived in England/Scotland/Wales for all of their life with very unclear rights and responsiblities.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Well, you are fine in that respect. As a citizen of a state that has signed the European Convention on Human Rights, you have rights under it, and the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees those rights - including Article 10 re freedom of expression - to everyone in the UK, not just citizens. What Phil Woolas seems to have said is that non-citizen residents from states that aren't ECHR signatories may be denied their ECHR rights, which may be technically within the law but is utterly at odds with its purpose, as initially laid out by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine:

"The fourth point may be shortly stated but is of immense importance. The Courts' decisions will be based on a more overtly principled, indeed moral, basis. The Court will look at the positive right. It will only accept an interference with that right where a justification, allowed under the Convention, is made out. The scrutiny will not be limited to seeing if the words of an exception can be satisfied. The Court will need to be satisfied that the spirit of this exception is made out. It will need to be satisfied that the interference with the protected right is justified in the public interests in a free democratic society. Moreover, the Courts will in this area have to apply the Convention principle of proportionality. This means the Court will be looking substantively at that question. It will not be limited to a secondary review of the decision making process but at the primary question of the merits of the decision itself.

In reaching its judgment, therefore, the Court will need to expand and explain its own view of whether the conduct is legitimate. It will produce in short a decision on the morality of the conduct and not simply its compliance with the bare letter of the law."

That was in 1997. New Labour saw the HRA into law, but it didn't take long for the original high-minded ideals behind it to become something of an embarrassment.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that clarification. Phil Woolas didn't make that distinction on the Today program, because EU-citizens really aren't his target and he possibly assumes this is obvious.

I remember 1997 when New Labour did actually seem to be liberal on civil rights. *sigh* My father was saying last night that he's worried about the Tories winning the next elections as they are xenophobic and knee jerk and I had to say that I didn't think it would change much.