How so? If you don’t want to side load, then don’t. Others having the ability to do so doesn’t mean it needs to affect you…
My aunt just got a new car - her previous car was a 2004 Rover 25. Almost 20 years old and it was ULEZ compliant. If you’re ‘poor’ but still need to own and drive a car, there are plenty of cheap vehicles that meet the standard!
As someone who’s wife is currently on a spousal visa (who coincidentally secured her further leave to remain about a week ago), I can see both sides to this, as can she.
As a British citizen, I feel like I have some right to live with my wife in my own country. I’m clearly lucky in that I not only meet the income requirement but can afford the exorbitant visa costs.
On the other hand, it makes sense that I can afford to support my family without recourse to public money and quite frankly, I don’t know how well anyone can support themselves on £18,600, let alone anybody else as well in the part of the UK I live in.
I can understand the argument of this being a ‘tax on love’, but there would always be an alternative to living in the UK - the other country. If living here wasn’t viable for my family, it leaves only the options of living abroad or ending the relationship. Expecting to receive support for my choice from public money doesn’t seem right when there are already so many other areas that need the money for the people already here!
All the talk of Starmer not having personality or leadership seemed to skim over me for the longest time and I thought he was the right man for the job. I liked the way he interviewed and I thought his career of ‘fighting the good fight’ made him just what we needed.
I’m not sure anymore. His handling of important topics recently has been lacklustre to say the least and, although I don’t really like the term, I’m seeing him as a ‘red Tory’ more and more.
Lots of people start their working careers with the mindset of continuing to do some form of work in retirement. As you get closer, that opinion often changes.
I don’t see here where anyone is trying to justify Israel. They’re wrong. So are Hamas. It’s that simple.
Are you trying to suggest that Hamas were some how justified in intentionally killing innocent civilians?
Not having an answer doesn’t mean you can’t condemn both sides in this.
I’d hoped for more, considering his work on human rights. I suppose it’s just not popular to state the truth on this matter; condemning Israel’s war crimes doesn’t mean you support Hamas’ terrorism and it certainly isn’t antisemitism.
Over the last 11 years since I moved into my current role, my salary has risen by approximately £35k. In addition to this my conditions have improved and I work fewer hours. My yearly negotiated increase has always outstripped inflation and I have only lost one day’s pay due to strike action to achieve these rises.
The company I work for continues to post profits in the billions of £s, despite paying their workers fairly.
I’d say my monthly union dues of <£20 have served me pretty well.
Anyone advocating against a union either stands to lose out by unionisation (ie those at the top that would rather keep their bonuses/salaries as high as possible) or have completely bought in to the capitalist nonsense that is often thrown around about unions.
The grammar in this article is horrendous. It’s almost as if Fox isn’t a reputable source for news!