Absolutely Anything Else

fluffy2560 wrote:

I have driven some larger trucks including very large dump trucks but that was all on private land and only for short periods.  When I say large I mean mining trucks - I was accompanying someone who was inspecting them and we drove them around for a couple of hours.  Surprisingly fast.

There is of course nothing faster than a Nissan Micra van. Wherever you are on the motorway/autoroute/autopista/autopálya etc, doing 130mph down the autobahn at 3am with nothing around, there will  soon be a Nissan Micra van behind you, flashing its headlights.

One of the things I like about the German autobahn (the unrestricted bits) is that there is, it seems to me, no competition. It just seems to make it safer. I am there plodding along in Lane 1 in my Mondeo and trailer, sometimes into Lane 2 to overtake a truck or seven, fast sports car sensibly comes past in Lane 3. If there's a hold up, fast sports car slows down, well in advance. Never seems to be any racing, cutting lanes, etc. The fast sports car driver knows she can go faster than me, and I know she can go faster than me, and we both know we know. So there just doesn't seem to be any need on anybody's part to prove it.

Compare that to UK motorways when I am in Lane 3 in a Mini or Beetle doing 68mph or 70mph to overtake a truck, with some arsehole behind me so close I do not dare tap my brakes to warn him off, and even if I ease the throttle to try to drop back behind the truck I am overtaking he won't let me slack off to drop back behind so he can pass. This is the problem with people who assume that your car can go as fast (or handle as well) as their car. No, I haven't ABS. I don't even have disc brakes . I do not have power-assisted steering or a turbo or a fifth gear. I am in Lane 3 because that truck in Lane 2 is slower than me. Be patient, I will move over when I am past it, or let me drop back by the length of your dick because I would rather have you in front of me than behind me.

People do the same in car parks, at kinda the opposite end of the speed spectrum. They will kinda assume you in a long wheelbase car are going to get into that space in one go, so you don't need the room where they are (in front of  you) to do an extra turn. Now, I am a pretty nifty parker, and I know damned well I am not going to get in that space in one go. The turning circle is THAT much and I will need two turns. Even if I had power steering I wouldn't particularly want to have to replace it every six months from it being used to turn the wheels when the car is stationary, but power steering does not reduce the turning circle, it would only make it quicker for me to prove that to you than wrenching this LADA balljoint steering column around.

I mean, really...

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

SimonTrew wrote:

What, another one?

Plunge pool from the sauna?

Naah.... turtle racecourse.

So long as you don't confuse turtle with tortoise. Hungarians confuse them.  Might be the same word for both.  Anyway, don't shell out too much on it.

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

I have driven some larger trucks including very large dump trucks but that was all on private land and only for short periods.  When I say large I mean mining trucks - I was accompanying someone who was inspecting them and we drove them around for a couple of hours.  Surprisingly fast.

There is of course nothing faster than a Nissan Micra van. Wherever you are on the motorway/autoroute/autopista/autopálya etc, doing 130mph down the autobahn at 3am with nothing around, there will  soon be a Nissan Micra van behind you, flashing its headlights.

One of the things I like about the German autobahn (the unrestricted bits) is that there is, it seems to me, no competition. It just seems to make it safer. I am there plodding along in Lane 1 in my Mondeo and trailer, sometimes into Lane 2 to overtake a truck or seven, fast sports car sensibly comes past in Lane 3. If there's a hold up, fast sports car slows down, well in advance. Never seems to be any racing, cutting lanes, etc. The fast sports car driver knows she can go faster than me, and I know she can go faster than me, and we both know we know. So there just doesn't seem to be any need on anybody's part to prove it.

.....
People do the same in car parks, at kinda the opposite end of the speed spectrum. They will kinda assume you in a long wheelbase car are going to get into that space in one go, so you don't need the room where they are (in front of  you) to do an extra turn. Now, I am a pretty nifty parker, and I know damned well I am not going to get in that space in one go. ......

I mean, really...

The white van phenomena has a parallel in company cars.  It's really surprising - they never need oil, can go for ages without servicing and seem to be able to survive crunching the gears without a second thought. Oh, and they go flat out.

On the Autobahn, the thing is that people have really good cars - like Porsches.  Those things are built for speed and have the brakes and stability to match it.  I had a really nice car when I first came here. I could probably do about 130 mph in it.  I was on the motorway doing over 100 between Nuernberg and Passau and people were passing me at high speed. I reckon they must have been doing well over 160 mph in their 911s.  I've seen accidents in Germany including some really serious ones but I've never actually seen one involving a sports car - it's all Opel and Fords.

The parking issue you are describing seems to be a two parter.

First part I reckon cars are getting wider but the parking slots are the same size which means it's harder to get in. 

And my second part is that the number of a-holes is increasing in proportion to the number of cars on the road and a lot of people seem to be getting stupidier.  The chances of seeing one is proportionally greater.

I drove back from Kelenfold Metro 4 station today and some scumbag in a BMW (aka Bayerische Mist Wagen as the Germans say) was dodging in and out of the traffic.  He managed to get about 100m more on me as followed him.  i think it's a "green wave" there.  Stupid nitwit was on his brakes half the time.  If he'd plodded he'd have just got green the whole way.  I arrived 2s after him with a lot less stress.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Your other half should swap over but if she's got a British passport...

She has a Hungarian passport.

fluffy2560 wrote:

There are loads of dual nationals driving around on their foreign licenses with foreign cars and pretending.

There are probably fewer genuine dual nationals than most people think there are. People tend to bandy the term around when they have sneakily got two passports. That doesn't generally make them dual nationality, it tends to make them liars, because they have said to each government that i live here etc. and all is tickety-boo and show the right passport at the border... until something goes wrong and certainly the UK government's stance on this is, and has always been, if you are in trouble on another nation's soil and are a national (or citizen) of that country,  we will not help you, you are required to obey that nation's laws.

As a UK citizen one doesn't automatically become dual national through marriage or through your children or parents being born of different nationalities, these things are not that simple. Yours and Mrs Fluffy's and the Fluffiettes' status is probably superficially extremely siimlar to my boss's with a hungarian wife and two minors yet he (after living in Hungary over twenty years) worries that if Mrs Boss goes to the UK there will be trouble, and the children were never registered as British (which seems to me the obvious thing he should do now, take them wjthout Mrs Boss on a holiday and while there, register them as British while they are minors, but hey ho.)

I realise I have intermixed the terms nationality and citizenship but I have met many people with "dual nationality" which, on a mere cursory enquiry, I find they are not, they have just  lied their way into getting two passports.

fluffy2560 wrote:

i think it's a "green wave" there.  Stupid nitwit was on his brakes half the time.  If he'd plodded he'd have just got green the whole way.  I arrived 2s after him with a lot less stress.

I've never heard it called a "green wave" before, but I know what you mean... to nobody's surprise, the traffic lights are set up to get the traffic through in convoy. Kingsway coming from the M56 into Manchester (now part of the M60 Ring Road) used to be like that - 40mph limit and if you sat at 40mph (and my speedo on my Beetle registered 40mph at 40mph) you would just get green, green, green, all the way through. Just absolutely no point doing more or less than that.

I imagine we could each have a night in the shed talking about inconsiderate drivers. And that is what I like about the autobahn, there is a kinda consideration there. , I would say down the autobahn the Porche drivers doing three hundred clicks are some of the most considerate drivers I have ever known. Of course they want to let it out, but when there IS a hold up they also know how to let it in.

Presumably it is illegal to restrict your view by hanging your salesman's jacket right in your blind spot behind you, but nobody ever seems to get done for it. Perhaps the police take pity because it is usually an extremely cheap suit.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The parking issue you are describing seems to be a two parter.

First part I reckon cars are getting wider but the parking slots are the same size which means it's harder to get in.  ....

Cars are definitely getting wider because of all the side protection etc. You only have to look at the BMW "mini" to see that. Doesn't deserve the name.

And indeed car parking spaces are the same size, which is a bit stupid. There is not much you can do with garages that were built in the 1950s but you can paint new lines, unfortunately of course it means reducing saying "600 car parking spaces at our megamall" to "500".

A lot of it though is down to the Volvo Effect i.e. the almost urbanlegendish idea that people drive with less care when they think they are safer. (This seems in most studies to be neither proved nor disproved.) Certainly I can simply not see the point of things like reversing sensors. You should fucking know where the back of your vehicle is. If you drive a truck or a bus or a tank you have to know where it is the same as you know where the back of your head is without looking, you just know where it is. Sticking a camera on the back to be some fancy rear view mirror just seems bloody confusing to me.

On the other hand my missus said the other night she had never realised that 'POLICE', etc was written backwards on the bonnets of emergency vehicles. This does not surprise me at all because (a) my missus is extremely stupid and (b) the whole point is so you see it the right way round and (c) most people automatically reverse that kind of thing without noticing, so even when they see it backwards the brain recognises it forwards without you realising. Also,   it has great big flashing lights, two tone horns and so on, and is sitting on your arse.

fluffy2560 wrote:

So long as you don't confuse turtle with tortoise. Hungarians confuse them.  Might be the same word for both.

It is.

A tortoise taught us Tort. Tort ought
(As Tort is taught) to be
Taught by a tortoise as a tortoise
Taught us Tort. Agree?

SimonTrew wrote:

......There are probably fewer genuine dual nationals than most people think there are. People tend to bandy the term around when they have sneakily got two passports. That doesn't generally make them dual nationality, it tends to make them liars, because they have said to each government that i live here etc. and all is tickety-boo and show the right passport at the border... until something goes wrong and certainly the UK government's stance on this is, and has always been, if you are in trouble on another nation's soil and are a national (or citizen) of that country,  we will not help you, you are required to obey that nation's laws.....

Ah well, now this is something I know about as I've been around this loop with my kids and multiple relatives are dual nationals - and not all of the same country.   3 of my 4 kids were born in foreign lands (i.e. not my home country - UK).

Anyway, what lies and what's sneaky?  There's nothing to lie about and physical presence in a country means nothing at all as far as citizenship goes.   Dual nationals haven't said anything to anyone about where they live when they cross the border.  What they have said is that I'm a national and I'm entitled to come in without further ado.  And so what?   There's nothing to stop a citizen of one country residing in another as far as their passports are concerned.  Totally legit.

As far as Passport controls are concerned, a citizen of a country is actually exempt from that country's immigration controls.  Showing your passport means you are not subject to them. Bit of an contradiction but true nonetheless - I have to show a valid immigration document to show I am not subject to immigration.  D'oh!

Hungary and the UK allow dual citizenship and therefore allow a person two passports.  Some countries don't allow it but they are more the exception than the rule.

SimonTrew wrote:

As a UK citizen one doesn't automatically become dual national through marriage or through your children or parents being born of different nationalities, these things are not that simple. Yours and Mrs Fluffy's and the Fluffiettes' status is probably superficially extremely siimlar to my boss's with a hungarian wife and two minors yet he (after living in Hungary over twenty years) worries that if Mrs Boss goes to the UK there will be trouble, and the children were never registered as British (which seems to me the obvious thing he should do now, take them wjthout Mrs Boss on a holiday and while there, register them as British while they are minors, but hey ho.)
....

Assuming a pairing which is not forbidden by one of the countries involved, generally if your parents are different nationalities then you will be a dual national of each country.  Mostly it doesn't even matter where you are born (although some countries do that too).  Because the baby comes out of the woman, the baby is automatically the mother's nationality.  With the father, it's different - UK requires the parents to be married.  Other places, I don't know but maybe it's the same mostly. 

You are right, Mr Boss is being silly.  If he has two kids (and he's the natural father) then he should apply for their UK passports as quickly as possible to make sure it's fully nailed down pre-Brexit.   It doesn't matter if they were married when he fathered them but it does matter if he married Mrs Boss eventually.   So long as he's British, and he's on the birth certificate, and married, job done.

It won't make a bit of difference if Mrs Boss travels with the kids from HU to the UK (it does matter in some other countries) but that's presumably because the Bossettes have his family name.  The easiest thing to do is to check the Wizzair web site - they have quite detailed instructions on kid identification. It's not too onerous if one is organised. 

Mrs Fluffy travels with the kids all the time without me and she uses her Hungarian family name.  No-one has ever said a thing as far as I know.  In any case, our kids aren't babies and are quite likely to give anyone trying to pull some official BS on them a right ear bashing.   

If we're all travelling together to the UK, I insist the kids use their UK passports to enter.  I insist because I want them to assert their rights to be there and to be British. But when they come back here, they usually use their HU passports to enter Hungary.   

BTW, if you see a US or Canadian car driving about here, you can pretty much guarantee they are dual nationals. Less so the other foreign registered cars.

fluffy2560 wrote:

BTW, if you see a US or Canadian car driving about here, you can pretty much guarantee they are dual nationals. Less so the other foreign registered cars.

It's an interesting topic and probably one we should spin off into its own topic, if we can do that?

I agree with you about Boss and the Bossettes. I don't know the details, but in essence I am sure you are right.

As for the US, generally speaking one must choose on reaching the age of majority (18) whether to be a US citizen or not, i.e. the US does not recognise dual nationality. Hungary does. So while someone from the US may be a "dual national" in Hungary, they cannot be a "dual national" in the United States, upon reaching the age of majority: they have to choose. What they tend to do is tell the US that they have revoked other citizenship/nationality when in fact they have not.

Similarly Canada recognises dual nationality but the UK does not. My ex partner has both a Canuck passport and a British one, and does the ususal trick or lie  in leaving on one passport and arriving on another, that is, changing identity mid-flight. The UK does not recognise her continued Canadian citizenship because, at least officially, they do not know about it: because when she took British citizenship she had to rescind citizenship of any other country as part of her declaration. It is part of the legal document that she signed.

This a legal fiction if you want, I call it a lie for simplicity. I have seen it with minors travelling to the US, the cabin crew saying to the minor "remember you need to show them your US passport not this passport, OK?" but it is still a lie.

The reason I say it is a lie is that neither embassy will help you if you get into trouble within the other's desmesne. The legal fiction then ends. This is the point I was trying to make, that dual nationality has obligations as well as rights. If you are an Israeli or Swiss citizen you will be called up for National Service and there is no point trying to get out of it by claiming that you are Hungarian or Luxemburgish. Like conducting an affair, you will have to remember all your life who you are faithful to when you are faithful to neither.

With minors, it seems quite reasonable to me to allow them multiple status until the age of majority. Strictly they are not citizens anyway while they are minors, but that is a matter of semantics (and, in the British case, a bizarre arrangement of ages.) Having achieved the age of majority, which let us assume means the age at which one is entitled to vote, then one must choose where one's allegiance lies. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Dual nationals haven't said anything to anyone about where they live when they cross the border

That is not generally true. Countries that have landing cards, visa waivers or whatever expect you to tell them where you live when you cross the border. Tourist visas are indeed issued on the understanding that you are not going to take up residence. Nationals, dual or not, in the general case do have to state where they live. The passport implies that they live in a particular country, but other documentation will ask for specific addresses etc. I think that is a slip on your part is that you have forgotten of going to places where you have to register within three days with the local police, etc. You still must in Greece, for example, which is part of the EU.

fluffy2560 wrote:

As far as Passport controls are concerned, a citizen of a country is actually exempt from that country's immigration controls.  Showing your passport means you are not subject to them. Bit of an contradiction but true nonetheless - I have to show a valid immigration document to show I am not subject to immigration.  D'oh!

I have remarked on this before, in a topic entitled "The Let and Hindrance". It is a let and hindrance for a British immigration official to stop me in the UK and demand my passport, and Her Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires that he doesn't stop (let) or hinder me.

I have often been tempted to arrive at Immigration and try to get through without showing my passport. (I have a certain penchant for civil liberties). Unfortunately the missus is usually in too much of a hurry, and I in too much need of a cigarette, to see what happens. Maybe next time.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Hungary and the UK allow dual citizenship and therefore allow a person two passports.  Some countries don't allow it but they are more the exception than the rule.

...

Assuming a pairing which is not forbidden by one of the countries involved, generally if your parents are different nationalities then you will be a dual national of each country.  Mostly it doesn't even matter where you are born (although some countries do that too).  Because the baby comes out of the woman, the baby is automatically the mother's nationality.  With the father, it's different - UK requires the parents to be married.  Other places, I don't know but maybe it's the same mostly.

The UK does not allow automatic dual citizenship by marriage. The main barrier to entry is to discourage marriages of convenience. Transitively, children of a marriage between people of different nationalities does not "count" towards their parents getting dual citizenship. Of course, that is grossly simplifying things.

I see that form AN1 requires the missus to have passed  the Life in the UK test. Since she lived there seven years, was married there by the rites of the Church of England, the established church, and worked and has a national insurance number and has paid the taxman and learned to drive there, you would think that would be enough. But she would need to pass the Life in the UK test. As far as I can tell, she can only do this from within the UK.  Being married to an Englishman for eight years is not enough, she also has to prove her proficiency in English with a certificate (which I think she has) and the fact she uses English every day of her life is of no relevance. So much for freedom of movement...

SimonTrew wrote:

.....Certainly I can simply not see the point of things like reversing sensors. You should fucking know where the back of your vehicle is. If you drive a truck or a bus or a tank you have to know where it is the same as you know where the back of your head is without looking, you just know where it is. Sticking a camera on the back to be some fancy rear view mirror just seems bloody confusing to me.

......

Reversing sensors are brilliant.  Really useful things.  Ours play different tunes depending on which side and front or back. Camera, meh.

More odd is the sensor on some cars where you wave your foot under the back of the car and it opens the boot (trunk).  Someone I know has that and he left his car in the drive and didn't always lock it.  Several times he found the back open and couldn't figure it out.  His car would open randomly rain or shine.

And then he noticed the cat liked walking underneath it.

fluffy2560 wrote:

More odd is the sensor on some cars where you wave your foot under the back of the car and it opens the boot (trunk).

On my Ford Sierra (Ghia) there was a panel that told you if any of your lamps were on or doors were open, with a plan view. This was of course about as much use as a snake in an arse competition, but it also had one for the (manual) sunroof. Which I guess is handy rather than coming back to find your AA Book of The Road (1956 edition) has been drenched by water ingress roofwise.

Which set me thinking, my mum and dad used to get a man round to cut the roof out to fit a sunroof in. I presume at the time that was legal but you never see that any more. Either (a) because nobody wants a tatty little sunroof on a mini metro any more or (b) because it would ruin the structural integrity of a car with monocoque/integral construction. I am aiming for (b) but since the things had such little structural, let alone moral, integrity to start with, I am not entirely sure.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You are right, Mr Boss is being silly.  If he has two kids (and he's the natural father) then he should apply for their UK passports as quickly as possible to make sure it's fully nailed down pre-Brexit.

Mr Boss is British and has lived in various places before moving to Hungary after a sojourn in Germany and a spell in Bankruptcy. Since his father was Irish he now wants to apply for Irish citizenship although he has never lived there. He himself was surprised when I told him that Irish people can live in the UK because of the 1922 Agreement, and vice versa, and it has nothing to do with Europe... since both Ireland and the UK joined the EEC as was at the same time, the point has been moot and seems rarely brought up. He seems fantastically naive about some things like that but I wonder if it is just a bluff.

Yet even if he did get Irish citizenship (which I believe would mean renouncing British citizenship) it would  not mean that the Bossers (not Bossettes) would automatically get it too. But who knows in this crazy age when people can switch nationality with a flick of a wikipedia edit.

So the Bossers (not Bossettes) might be Irish as well as British and Hungarian, or might be just British and Hungarian, or might be just Irish and Hungarian, or might just be Hungarian.

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

I was of course referring to the portal in the back of the wardrobe (closet).

So, you are suggesting that there is some kind of box with doors on the front, through which you enter and it can take you anywhere in space, even into different times? You might be on  to something there, we could perhaps make a story out of it, but we should give it a catchy name. How about The Alternative-Reality Dresser (Incognito) Simulacrum... no that is no good...

Giant Armoire, Really Does Reality-Oscillating Bifurcation. (G.A.R.D.R.O.B.)? How's that? So that a chap (or chappess) can go around in the G.A.R.D.R.O.B. finding other realities in time and space... are you with me so far? But what about the co-pilot and the trolley dolly, you need another couple of characters.

If the wardrobe can shift one in space in and time, how about into alternate realities? Maybe where there are dragons. Or talking animals. Or witches. Maybe work one of those topics into the title.

Just a thought.....

SimonTrew wrote:

....Yet even if he did get Irish citizenship (which I believe would mean renouncing British citizenship) it would  not mean that the Bossers (not Bossettes) would automatically get it too. But who knows in this crazy age when people can switch nationality with a flick of a wikipedia edit.

So the Bossers (not Bossettes) might be Irish as well as British and Hungarian, or might be just British and Hungarian, or might be just Irish and Hungarian, or might just be Hungarian.

No, sorry,  that's completely wrong.  The British or Irish have no interest in what other nationalities a person holds.  There are NO restrictions on dual or more nationality in the UK and Ireland.  That's 100% true. Lots of people have both nationalities in the UK - just look at Northern Ireland.   

Your Boss should get his Irish passport and for his kids too.  It's important to assert their nationality rights.  They should use their passports on a regular basis in order to continually claim their connection.  They can then pass it on to their kids.

SimonTrew wrote:

The passport implies that they live in a particular country

Passports are documents about citizenship. They may imply country of residence, but have no guaranteed heuristical value about correctly determining place or country of residence.

And different countries have different rules about their citizens registering living abroad regarding passports. For example, I know that the Swiss require their citizens to register living abroad or they can not get their passport renewed.

My German friend is home right now visiting her mom in Munich.
Been well over a decade since she was home in Germany.
She has lived in Japan and the US. Been in the states longer then she ever lived in Germany.
Owns a house, several businesses in Las Vegas and has a home in Kona , HI. Her long time partner stays in the Kona home with most of their dogs.
She traveled to Germany with a couple of her Vegas friends and had a small issue with her German passport up in Canada.
I have no idea why she hasn't already become a US citizen.
Maybe Germany doesn't allow dual citizenship.
She is hardly ever in Germany and not staying long term when she does visit.
Maybe it's hard to let go of the past for some people?
I could easily let my US citizenship go and become a Hungarian citizen but so far don't think it's all that important or to my benefit one way or the other, just asking for a hassle by dealing with gov. workers again.
Have no plans on traveling anywhere that doesn't take a US passport, don't enjoy flying anyways.
My husband being a senior citizen of Hungary can apply for a free HU passport at any time since his old one has expired.
Just renewed his US passport, probably that is good enough without bothering to walk into city hall and fill out a few forms.
Getting lazy in his old age it seems, no longer is it as easy to enter the US with a HU passport, so better just travel with his US one and have less hassles with agents.
My DIL is going for her US citizenship very soon, has to wait for the full 5 years as a spouse of a citizen before applying.
More money down the drain , not cheap to file for paper on top of paper in the US.
Good thing my son has "half a brain" and can do most of the document work himself.
They make it very hard even for legit marriages. He had to get several witnesses to sign for her green card, saying they knew they were a real couple and not pulling a scam.
I sort of doubt too many young Japanese ladies are dying to come to America, who would want to come over unless it was for love or money?
Just sort of strange that my friend has little connection these days to Germany but still hasn't applied for US citizenship, she has invested more time and energy into making herself a great life in the US but still afraid to commit all the way.

SimonTrew wrote:

....That is not generally true. Countries that have landing cards, visa waivers or whatever expect you to tell them where you live when you cross the border. Tourist visas are indeed issued on the understanding that you are not going to take up residence. Nationals, dual or not, in the general case do have to state where they live. The passport implies that they live in a particular country, but other documentation will ask for specific addresses etc. I think that is a slip on your part is that you have forgotten of going to places where you have to register within three days with the local police, etc. You still must in Greece, for example, which is part of the EU.

I travel a lot. 

Nationals of a country do not need a visa or a landing card when they arrive in a country of which they are citizens.  They might have to make a declaration for customs but they are not subject to immigration controls and their passport proves it.   

The USA is special case as their system assumes everyone is an immigrant until you declare you're a visitor.  That's what their wank forms are for. 

Greece is also a special case for nationals because they assume anything you have with you is taxable.  There are numerous cases of expat Greek nationals having their foreign registered cars seized at the Greek border for non-payment of taxes.  That's even if they've lived overseas for many years.

Possession of a passport has no bearing on where you live.  Never has done.   And it doesn't imply it either.

I know about the person registration all too well.  But if you go on holiday, then hotels usually register you behind the scenes and there's nothing you need do.  Visiting relatives, I don't know anyone who bothers with registration.  I've been in multiple countries that need exit stamps. I've just come back from one country which requires registration evidence to exit.  The locals don't need that form for immigration.  They are already registered somewhere, even if it's BS.

SimonTrew wrote:

I see that form AN1 requires the missus to have passed  the Life in the UK test. Since she lived there seven years, was married there by the rites of the Church of England, the established church, and worked and has a national insurance number and has paid the taxman and learned to drive there, you would think that would be enough. But she would need to pass the Life in the UK test. As far as I can tell, she can only do this from within the UK.  Being married to an Englishman for eight years is not enough, she also has to prove her proficiency in English with a certificate (which I think she has) and the fact she uses English every day of her life is of no relevance. So much for freedom of movement...

In the wake of the Windrush affair, they might be nicer about it.  She should try it on again when you go there again. I think the test is multi-choice and done on computer.  Might be an easy thing to do on the fly.  Maybe it's possible to do it online without going there.  You can fool any geolocation using a VPN.

Mrs Fluffy only has the certificate to the mid-level English even though she's fluent.  She cannot be arsed to do it now.   Her cousin has the top level and she's nowhere near as good as Mrs Fluffy.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

My German friend is home right now visiting her mom in Munich.
Been well over a decade since she was home in Germany.
She has lived in Japan and the US. Been in the states longer then she ever lived in Germany.
Owns a house, several businesses in Las Vegas and has a home in Kona , HI. Her long time partner stays in the Kona home with most of their dogs.
She traveled to Germany with a couple of her Vegas friends and had a small issue with her German passport up in Canada.
I have no idea why she hasn't already become a US citizen.
Maybe Germany doesn't allow dual citizenship.
...
I could easily let my US citizenship go and become a Hungarian citizen but so far don't think it's all that important or to my benefit one way or the other, just asking for a hassle by dealing with gov. workers again.
Have no plans on traveling anywhere that doesn't take a US passport, don't enjoy flying anyways.
....
Just sort of strange that my friend has little connection these days to Germany but still hasn't applied for US citizenship, he has invested more time and energy into making herself a great life in the US but still afraid to commit all the way.

Germany doesn't allow dual citizenship except in exceptional circumstances. 

But I don't think your German friend should worry about it.  She could apply for US citizenship and don't tell the Germans.  It's sovereign business.

As your son proves, nothing to stop a US citizen being a citizen of somewhere else too.

SimonTrew wrote:

......

As for the US, generally speaking one must choose on reaching the age of majority (18) whether to be a US citizen or not, i.e. the US does not recognise dual nationality. Hungary does. So while someone from the US may be a "dual national" in Hungary, they cannot be a "dual national" in the United States, upon reaching the age of majority: they have to choose. What they tend to do is tell the US that they have revoked other citizenship/nationality when in fact they have not.

Similarly Canada recognises dual nationality but the UK does not. My ex partner has both a Canuck passport and a British one, and does the ususal trick or lie  in leaving on one passport and arriving on another, that is, changing identity mid-flight. The UK does not recognise her continued Canadian citizenship because, at least officially, they do not know about it: because when she took British citizenship she had to rescind citizenship of any other country as part of her declaration. It is part of the legal document that she signed.


With minors, it seems quite reasonable to me to allow them multiple status until the age of majority. Strictly they are not citizens anyway while they are minors, but that is a matter of semantics (and, in the British case, a bizarre arrangement of ages.) Having achieved the age of majority, which let us assume means the age at which one is entitled to vote, then one must choose where one's allegiance lies. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

When you say recognise, what should that infer?  A better word might be acknowledge.   

But it's largely irrelevant what other citizenships a person holds if that person is IN a country of which they are a national.  A good extreme example is Iran. An Iranian citizen in Iran is subject to Iranian law (ok, so are foreigners to a different degree).  It's no good calling the British Embassy for help if in the other country.

I've never heard of anyone being required to rescind citizenship of another country when applying for a British passport.  Our kids have both UK and HU passports and I don't recall answering any such questions or providing any information regarding other nationalities.   

My nieces kids are nationals of 3 countries with three passports.  No-one has said a single thing.  Certainly, the British just do not care about it. 

As for the US, definitely they do NOT have to choose their nationality at 18.  Marilyn will attest to that.  Australia used to have such a thing but that rule I believe has been rescinded some years ago.

Maybe unfortunate words - if your ex-partner was a British citizen through her parents etc,  she did not "take" British citizenship. She was always a British citizen.  She merely obtained a passport. Holding a passport is evidence of nationality but it's not total confirmation.

Yes, at least for now if you're born in the USA you are a automatic citizen, one reason so many S. of the border arrive, have a baby and claim " anchor citizenship" through their child. they are called "anchor babies" for that reason alone.
Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.
I do  love a few things about Hungary.
For one being able to just walk in and see a doctor or dentist at any time when needed.
Yesterday after letting it go for a good month or so, I decided to check out why my gum line was sore.
Had allot of dental work done last year and wasn't really feeling like being in the chair again.
Went back to my old dental school and they took me and did a set of x-rays. Everything is perfect, it's me once again hurting myself by over cleaning and scrubbing too hard. Going to hard with the dental flossing.
Now I have to get some sort of tiny little brush instead of floss.
In the US there is now way you can just walk into a dentist and see them the same day unless you are some sort of very good paying client.
Relief to know my teeth or good, just overdoing it once again with the flossing.
Is there such a thing as keeping your teeth too clean? Guess so. My own worst enemy is myself.
Another friend of mine, the one who could possible claim being "royal" through marriage with her Persian husband , is having extensive surgery on her neck today in Ca. Having a rod inserted into her neck, after 2 months of recovery she will go in and have rods but into her back. 2 different surgeries to keep her spine from falling apart.
Sounds very creepy to me.
I had a old neighbor in Ca. who's spine would crack and break into pieces if she turned the wrong way in the night. She was in her mid 80's though.
My friend is only 63.
I am a bit surprised her back is that bad, she was built super women strong. Really tall with Swedish and German DNA, a very heavy set large lady, maybe her extra weight was too much over the years.
She posted photos of her hairdresser coming to her home last week to fix her hair pre surgery.
I had to hold back and  not ask her if that style was the best for her condition. Don't wish her to take it wrong.
She has hair extensions that have beads and ribbons within and are all the way down to her waist.
Crazy hairstyle with about an extra 5 lbs on her head.

Talk about killing yourself for beauty. I wonder why her medical team would allow her to have such a style in the OR? Recovery with all that on top of her head just seems like a hassle.
Guess she subscribes to the motto of ,"It's better to look Marvelous then to feel Marvelous."

fluffy2560 wrote:

Possession of a passport has no bearing on where you live.  Never has done.   And it doesn't imply it either.

When I still was flying quite regularly on business out of Europe (when I was living in Switzerland), passport control would often ask me, with my American passport, why I had a return trip ticket to Europe. I had to then pull out and show my Swiss residency card (which was about the size of my passport). So I would say, my passport "implied" I was not living in Europe, and had to prove my actual residency. This all happened mostly, but not exclusively, in German airport by the way.

It was easier when I moved to Hungary, as my residency card here is more like a credit card and I could just slipped it into the photo page of my passport to avoid being asked about my residency.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Yes, at least for now if you're born in the USA you are a automatic citizen

As that citizen clause is part the 14th Amendment, it would take a new amendment to change it, which I doubt would happen.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Yes, at least for now if you're born in the USA you are a automatic citizen, one reason so many S. of the border arrive, have a baby and claim " anchor citizenship" through their child. they are called "anchor babies" for that reason alone.
Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Yes, been through all this stuff with the Fluffyettes.

It's of the blood or of the soil that determines citizenship, nicely summed up here:

Jus sanguinis and Jus soli

In our case, our Fluffyettes cannot pass on their UK citizenship to their kids unless they go and live in the UK for some time.  I believe 3 years is good enough.  I think they would want to get a job there anyway down the line but until then, they need to assert their rights. 

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

She has hair extensions that have beads and ribbons within and are all the way down to her waist.  Crazy hairstyle with about an extra 5 lbs on her head.

Talk about killing yourself for beauty. I wonder why her medical team would allow her to have such a style in the OR? Recovery with all that on top of her head just seems like a hassle.
Guess she subscribes to the motto of ,"It's better to look Marvelous then to feel Marvelous."

Sounds very pretty but not very good for her noggin. 

I'd have thought that pile of stuff would lead totraction alopecia.

She might have been better having it cut short as it'd be easier to care for post surgery especially as her neck is involved - difficult to twist and turn perhaps.

All this talk about driving made me wonder again, what does the M on Hungarian motorways (autopálya) stand for? Since obviously most places that are autobahn/autoroute/autostrada etc the A stands for Autowhatever. The M in Britain and Ireland stands for Motorway, the i in I-95 for Interstate, etc.

Now since the Hungarian for motorway does not start with M. I assume that it stands for "Magyarorszag" or similar, but I don't actually know. Does anyone?

klsallee wrote:

If the wardrobe can shift one in space in and time, how about into alternate realities? Maybe where there are dragons. Or talking animals. Or witches. Maybe work one of those topics into the title.

Just a thought.....

I think you should do your own reality check there, that's never going to work. For the secondary characters we could have some scheming woman as a bit of love interest, and, all right as a concession, a talking mammal.

Working title: The lying bitch and the warthog.

As for the transportation device, it could be called the Multi-Reality Boudoir-Embedded Navigator, or M.R. B.E.N.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Possession of a passport has no bearing on where you live.  Never has done.   And it doesn't imply it either.

When I still was flying quite regularly on business out of Europe (when I was living in Switzerland), passport control would often ask me, with my American passport, why I had a return trip ticket to Europe. I had to then pull out and show my Swiss residency card (which was about the size of my passport). So I would say, my passport "implied" I was not living in Europe, and had to prove my actual residency. This all happened mostly, but not exclusively, in German airport by the way.

It was easier when I moved to Hungary, as my residency card here is more like a credit card and I could just slipped it into the photo page of my passport to avoid being asked about my residency.

Maybe that would be a question for 3rd country nationals and non-EU states but I've never been asked where I live or where I've been going when passing EU European borders.   I've been asked elsewhere (non-EU) where I will be staying but never asked within EU Europe. 

Germans border folk can easily get confused about stuff.  One border guard wanted to check how much cash I had as he thought we'd come from Turkey when in fact, we'd just transited Munich from Zagreb. Confused by the characters on the boarding pass and presumably a geographically challenged individual. I could call him moronically stupid but that would be too polite.

I was at the airport (yet again) on Saturday and when I got to passports, they didn't even scan my passport this time.  Usually they are supposed to under the EU regulations but he just looked at it and gave it back.   I don't know what went on in the other non-EU queue - it was mobbed there.

Post Brexit I suppose us British might get more interrogation but realistically, I cannot see them paying much more attention than they do now.  I don't think they will care much more than they do now about Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic passports and UK etc.  After all, you could fly into Vienna or Bratislava, then transit to Hungary by road.   Who is going to care that much about it?

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Yes, at least for now if you're born in the USA you are a automatic citizen, one reason so many S. of the border arrive, have a baby and claim " anchor citizenship" through their child. they are called "anchor babies" for that reason alone.
Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Yes, been through all this stuff with the Fluffyettes.

It's of the blood or of the soil that determines citizenship, nicely summed up here:

Jus sanguinis and Jus soli

In our case, our Fluffyettes cannot pass on their UK citizenship to their kids unless they go and live in the UK for some time.  I believe 3 years is good enough.  I think they would want to get a job there anyway down the line but until then, they need to assert their rights. 

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

She has hair extensions that have beads and ribbons within and are all the way down to her waist.  Crazy hairstyle with about an extra 5 lbs on her head.

Talk about killing yourself for beauty. I wonder why her medical team would allow her to have such a style in the OR? Recovery with all that on top of her head just seems like a hassle.
Guess she subscribes to the motto of ,"It's better to look Marvelous then to feel Marvelous."

Sounds very pretty but not very good for her noggin. 

I'd have thought that pile of stuff would lead totraction alopecia.

She might have been better having it cut short as it'd be easier to care for post surgery especially as her neck is involved - difficult to twist and turn perhaps.

I was thinking the same thing, not good to have your roots pulled all the time with that heavy hairstyle.
She and a few of my other old friends see themselves as "Hippies".
Makes me laugh because if anyone of us had actually been a real "Hippie" we would of had to of been born a bit earlier or at least been a Hippie in the day.
I am the only one of our group who ran away from home, went to a real love in as a 12 year old and smoked you know what ages before any of them did.
Not bragging here, just saying the only thing Hippie about them is them flashing the peace sign.
I turned them all onto the Doors, they all were into the Monkey's, it was hard work getting them up to date on music, those Monkey LP's had to go.
Of course non of them had a cool older sister to teach them how to be cool.
Oh well, let them live in their bubbles.
Think sometimes they are afraid of me because I know them from the past and they can't fool me with their new projected images of themselves. I know them  from way back when and don't buy their fantasy world.
My German friend is one of the "straightest arrows" I know. That's one reason I like her, she would never try to fool anyone by getting US citizenship and not telling Germany.
She plays by the rules and never breaks them. Honest to a T.
She is almost exactly 10 years my jr. , one week and one decade apart. Another Sag., we can't tell a lie to save our lives. Always putting our foot in in and getting caught if we ever twist the truth.
Again, our own worst enemies.

Yesterday was a bit disturbing , made me think we had better really, really wash all produce etc. before consuming it.
After the dentist we walked over to the great market hall to get some cherries and other fruits.
After we decided which vendor to buy from my husband asked for his kilo of cherries from a young but chubby guy.
We ordered but the guy had to finished off sucking on his ice cream stick, ok he was hot but then he proceeded to lift up his shirt to cool off his tummy... then he put his hands into the bin of cherries...Yuck,
Went to the exact next booth to buy another kilo of cherries, husband likes to try different ones.
As soon as we ordered the guy chose to stop and pick a zit on his arm!!! I made a groaning sound to let my husband know we should forget it.
I am not suppose to be speaking in English in the market, husband doesn't think he will get a fare deal if the vendors hear English spoken.
Obviously he didn't understand my cue to move on, I was so put out seeing that guy squeeze his arm before putting his hands into the bin of cherries.
It was so gross.
Once over the sour kraut bin the older women had a sneezing fit, we decided to move to the next vendor, wish he had heard my cue to not buy from Mr. zit... I will be double and triple soaking these cheeris , not so sure I really want any myself now...

SimonTrew wrote:

klsallee wrote:

If the wardrobe can shift one in space in and time, how about into alternate realities? Maybe where there are dragons. Or talking animals. Or witches. Maybe work one of those topics into the title.

Just a thought.....

I think you should do your own reality check there, that's never going to work. For the secondary characters we could have some scheming woman as a bit of love interest, and, all right as a concession, a talking mammal.

Working title: The lying bitch and the warthog.

Not very child friendly. 

I raise you an "Ice maiden.... and ....."?

That way we can have "Ice maiden rides again....", "Ice maiden and the Horseman" (with Putin), ..."Ice maiden dies hard another day" (with Bruce Willis) etc.

Then we get the Uber bitch with whatever.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Oh, they do. One of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policies is to put immigrant children into foster homes (often without their parents' knowledge) and then either refuse entry to the parents or stick them in prison. The latest (June 2nd) edition of 'The Economist' has a very good leading article on this (page 10 "A cruel and unusual border policy").

SimonTrew wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Oh, they do. One of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policies is to put immigrant children into foster homes (often without their parents' knowledge) and then either refuse entry to the parents or stick them in prison. The latest (June 2nd) edition of 'The Economist' has a very good leading article on this (page 10 "A cruel and unusual border policy").

That's harsh for sure. Been away from the states too long, things have changed a bit.

SimonTrew wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Oh, they do. One of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policies is to put immigrant children into foster homes (often without their parents' knowledge) and then either refuse entry to the parents or stick them in prison. The latest (June 2nd) edition of 'The Economist' has a very good leading article on this (page 10 "A cruel and unusual border policy").

I read that article too.  Weird thing is that these kids are essentially untraceable according to that article.  Cruel and unusual punishment - without trial as well.  Might be a challenge there on Constitutional grounds - contrary to popular belief, anyone physically in the USA is more or less protected by the US constitution regardless of their status (it must be true as I saw it on Law and Order).

Mrs Fluffy and I were having a discussion this morning over breakfast about a recent Hungarian video (Google for it, index.hu? no here: Hir TV - Abuse), where two women were dressed as Muslims and speaking Arabic (?).  They were actually actors being filmed for a movie or something but some passerby starts hurling abuse at them.  A passing taxi driver tries to tell him it's a movie and they are actors.  He seems unconvinced despite the presence of a film crew, with lights, camera and everything.  What an idiot!

We then had a discussion about the dehumanisation of refugees and illegals and I posed the following fictitious scenario -  we come home and find an illegal immigrant hiding in our shed and eating our leftovers from the compost heap and drinking out of our hose pipe.   Our anti-immigrant neighbour has advocated shooting illegals who cross the border.  I know he's got a gun over there so we take the immigrant over to his house and ask the neighbour what he should do.  Should he shoot the immigrant in the head or not? 

In other words, anti-immigrant rhetoric vs the reality of those beliefs in your face. 

Mrs Fluffy thinks the neighbour would have no qualms about shooting the immigrant. 

I think when faced with it, the neighbour would back down.

SimonTrew wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Oh, they do. One of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policies is to put immigrant children into foster homes (often without their parents' knowledge) and then either refuse entry to the parents or stick them in prison. The latest (June 2nd) edition of 'The Economist' has a very good leading article on this (page 10 "A cruel and unusual border policy").

Here's an extract from that article in The Economist 2nd June:

"...............The Obama and Bush administrations both increased deportations of illegal migrants, yet avoided separating migrant families. Mr Trump’s, by contrast, appears to view its right to deprive migrant parents of their children, when pitching them into the criminal-justice system, as a useful deterrent against future immigration. There are reports of migrants having been deported while their children remain in the United States’ foster-care system. Some were not told where their children are or whether they would see them again—and they may not.

Apparently unnerved by the controversy, Mr Trump blamed it on a “horrible law”, which in turn he pinned on the Democrats. It is in fact based on Mr Sessions’s effort to prosecute a lot more illegal entrants. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally,” he said. The policy has so far mainly been applied to immigrants charged with a crime, such as crossing illegally more than once. But Mr Sessions also wants to lock up first offenders, who can be detained for up to six months by immigration authorities. In the absence of an increase in family detention centres, that would lead to the break-up of many more families.

It would also put huge pressure on the overburdened foster-care system—which is only one of the ways Mr Sessions’s tough line is likely to be futile. There is little reason to think it will lead to a big drop in illegal immigration. Most migrants are motivated more by their miserable circumstances back home than the prospect of an easy life in America. Moreover, how countries treat migrants is an important advertisement of their character and values, which Americans underrate to their cost. America’s reputation for being fair and decent attracts highly skilled people. It is also among the reasons foreigners trust American diplomacy and admire its culture—despite the erosion of its reputation that has followed Mr Trump’s election.............."

Says it all really.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The British or Irish have no interest in what other nationalities a person holds.

That cuts both ways. You can't as a dual national claim the benefit of the other nation's laws etc while you are on British soil in the persona of a British citizen - in that sense also, the British have no interest in that you have another nationality. Similarly, if you are an Israeli citizen of a certain age you will be expected to do military service whether or not you have ever lived in Israel - it's part of the bargain, and you can't get out of it by saying "I am a dual national and I don't need to do that because I live in Wolloomoolloo'. That is the basic point I was trying to make.

Since in the UK you have to swear total allegiance to the Queen (i.e. as the personification of the State) for many things, such as joining the Army or being an M.P. or judge, you can't do that and have allegiance to some other state. If people do it, it's done on a nod and a wink.

If, for example, you were dual Hungarian and British and a war broke out between Hungary and Britain, what would happen if both sides called you up? You haven't some kind of diplomatic immunity by virtue of being dual: you have to choose which side to fight for, and the other side will call you a traitor.

Immigration law is so complex that it is probably impossible to have an argument about it without being wrong in almost every particular, so perhaps I shouldn't have started. That was really my opening point, that many people - usually not "expats" - have a vague idea about nationality, residence, domicile, citizenship etc etc that is entirely at odds with reality.

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

The British or Irish have no interest in what other nationalities a person holds.

That cuts both ways. You can't as a dual national claim the benefit of the other nation's laws etc while you are on British soil in the persona of a British citizen - in that sense also, the British have no interest in that you have another nationality. Similarly, if you have Israeli citizen of a certain age you will be expected to do military service whether or not you have ever lived in Israel - it's part of the bargain, and you can't get out of it by saying "I am a dual national and I don't need to do that because I live in Wolloomoolloo'. That is the basic point I was trying to make.

Immigration law is so complex that it is probably impossible to have an argument about it without being wrong in almost every particular, so perhaps I shouldn't have started. That was really my opening point, that many people - usually not "expats" - have a kind of idea about nationality, residence, domicile, citizenship etc etc that is entirely at odds with reality.

I agree with you and I said it too.  If you are a citizen of a country, you cannot claim help from the alternate nationality.  However, this has happened in the past - e.g. hostages in the Middle East.  Ireland intervened on a dual Irish-UK national with the UK government's effective agreement.  Ireland of course is neutral and not involved in conflicts supposedly even tacitly (useful to read about Ireland's stance during WW2, quite an eye opener on Irish veterans/returnees in that conflict).

My own point was most countries have no interest in other nationalities a citizen might hold. It's about sovereign rights to manage their own nationals.  You can see how breaking that rule might lead to issues - good example here with the HU government effectively "laying claim" to foreign citizens in the neighbouring countries.  They were protesting about it.  You can imagine giving citizenship to some groups, stirring up enough nationalism to hold a referendum to re-unify greater Hungary.  Further examples include Moldova and Romania. That'll go down like a lead balloon with the neighbours.  Not EU friendly either. 

Israel is another matter - principal of Aliyah there.  I was reading about it because of Chelsea FC's Ambramovich's claim on Israeli citizenship. I am not sure how that might work if a Christian tried it on.

fluffy2560 wrote:

SimonTrew wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Americans can be strange but they don't like to break up families as far as I know.

Oh, they do. One of Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policies is to put immigrant children into foster homes (often without their parents' knowledge) and then either refuse entry to the parents or stick them in prison. The latest (June 2nd) edition of 'The Economist' has a very good leading article on this (page 10 "A cruel and unusual border policy").

I read that article too.  Weird thing is that these kids are essentially untraceable according to that article.  Cruel and unusual punishment - without trial as well.  Might be a challenge there on Constitutional grounds - contrary to popular belief, anyone physically in the USA is more or less protected by the US constitution regardless of their status (it must be true as I saw it on Law and Order).

Mrs Fluffy and I were having a discussion this morning over breakfast about a recent Hungarian video (Google for it, index.hu? no here: Hir TV - Abuse), where two women were dressed as Muslims and speaking Arabic (?).  They were actually actors being filmed for a movie or something but some passerby starts hurling abuse at them.  A passing taxi driver tries to tell him it's a movie and they are actors.  He seems unconvinced despite the presence of a film crew, with lights, camera and everything.  What an idiot!

We then had a discussion about the dehumanisation of refugees and illegals and I posed the following fictitious scenario -  we come home and find an illegal immigrant hiding in our shed and eating our leftovers from the compost heap and drinking out of our hose pipe.   Our anti-immigrant neighbour has advocated shooting illegals who cross the border.  I know he's got a gun over there so we take the immigrant over to his house and ask the neighbour what he should do.  Should he shoot the immigrant in the head or not? 

In other words, anti-immigrant rhetoric vs the reality of those beliefs in your face. 

Mrs Fluffy thinks the neighbour would have no qualms about shooting the immigrant. 

I think when faced with it, the neighbour would back down.

Maybe you should ask the immigrant first if he wants to meet your neighbor or not.
Just kidding, that's crazy,I am a big believer in following rules but there also has to be a little bit of lead way not to do harm on purpose to people.
Never trust any gov. is the best policy.
I doubt your neighbor would really have the nerve to shoot a person in the head just for trying to move around another country without proper papers.
It takes something to actually harm another person.
I have been in fist-fights as a teenager, never started a fight but never ran away from one either.
It turns my stomach to hurt another person, killing them is not even on my menu card.
Self defense however is another issue, if one seeing their child or loved one being harmed by another person, I know my anger would take over and it would be curtains for them, sorry comes later.
My mom, a total spit-fire little lady would defend her husband to death.
Once in the mid 1960's they went out to a drink bar at night. They were in the parking lot leaving and some strange man tapped my step-dad on the shoulder and has he turned around the guy popped him hard in the face. So hard my strong step-dad went down to the gravel. He had a huge black eye the next day.
Without skipping a beat, my mom jumped on the guys back and started pounding his head in with her fists. Just enough time for my step-dad to get up and clean his clock.
The guy got up and said sorry, he thought my mom was his wife out with her boyfriend! Crazy.
My mom would of taken a few hits if needed to save her man. Thankfully it didn't go that far into the crazy zone.
Most people talk big but have nothing behind their big words. Watch out for the quiet ones, they are dangerous.
I know my dad was not happy, proud or felt good at all when I asked him if he ever killed anyone during WW11. He turned all sorts of grey and said once, that was it, he looked like he wanted to hide and cry.
Of course he was a medic and although not the best medic, he never wanted to fight anyone, a real lover and not a fighter.
My step-dad on the other hand couldn't keep count of all the people he took down, of course he had seen his friends being shot dead in front of him so  he wasn't himself either.
He mentioned how he escaped after being caught  during one of his wars. WW11 Or Korea.
He was placed in some sort of bamboo cage and mistreated.
He somehow broke off a piece of bamboo and made a shiv out of it. When he had a chance alone with one guard, he stabbed the man and escaped into the jungle.
Wow, under those circumstances I think anyone would fight for the life.

SimonTrew wrote:

All this talk about driving made me wonder again, what does the M on Hungarian motorways (autopálya) stand for? Since obviously most places that are autobahn/autoroute/autostrada etc the A stands for Autowhatever. The M in Britain and Ireland stands for Motorway, the i in I-95 for Interstate, etc.

Now since the Hungarian for motorway does not start with M. I assume that it stands for "Magyarorszag" or similar, but I don't actually know. Does anyone?

Aye carumba, is it seriously busy here because it's raining.

It's easy to say what M means.

It's Moolah as it costs a ridiculous bundle to get the vignette.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think when faced with it, the neighbour would back down.

Filed under "Present company excepted".

fluffy2560 wrote:

Aye carumba, is it seriously busy here because it's raining.

Perhaps we should go to Marilyn's house cos she gets better weather.

I should really take the tin-cans to the recycle and pick up some fine sable brushes to do a bit of snagging around the woodwork, but it's nicer to sit inside with a cup of hot chocolate and feel very smug that I don't have to be out in it.

I picked up a set of paintbrushes from Lidl a while back, one of their cheapies, and they are really good. I am not bad at the cutting in, but there are just a few places where I need an artist's brush as the cutting-in brush is just not small enough.

Soddit, I better get going. I so hate the Polus Center but at least it won't be too busy on a weekday.

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Aye carumba, is it seriously busy here because it's raining.

Perhaps we should go to Marilyn's house cos she gets better weather.

I should really take the tin-cans to the recycle and pick up some fine sable brushes to do a bit of snagging around the woodwork, but it's nicer to sit inside with a cup of hot chocolate and feel very smug that I don't have to be out in it.

I picked up a set of paintbrushes from Lidl a while back, one of their cheapies, and they are really good. I am not bad at the cutting in, but there are just a few places where I need an artist's brush as the cutting-in brush is just not small enough.

Soddit, I better get going. I so hate the Polus Center but at least it won't be too busy on a weekday.

Polus Center - I was there when it opened and Tesco arrived.  That was way way back. Even made a special journey to look at it.   As if I'd do that now.

Better just get on with those jobs except it's lunch time.  I reckon my productivity is about 25% of what it should be.  My problem is that I'm not bloody interested and it's taking me 4 x longer to do anything.