Jump to content

Citizenship test - are you in or out?

Huguenot

By Huguenot
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

maxxi

maxxi

Posted
Posted

15 - Dammit I knew I should have kept tabs on exactly how many people up to the age of 19 there are in this country - and how many hours we can make the little feckers work!


And I agree with peterstorm - hiding behind the sofa in the dark is a perfectly acceptable answer to "How might you stop young people playing tricks on you at Halloween?"

cosmonaut

cosmonaut

Posted
Posted

I took this test officially earlier this year, scored 23/24 at the time, and redid it now with a fail of 18/24. Sshh, don't tell the Home Office!


There are a HUGE number of other test questions available (they're randomly generated when you do the exam), with some of them even stupider than those listed here (eg, "Which statement is correct? A) The Queen is the heir to the throne B,) Prince Charles is the heir to the throne" and my personal favourite, "True or false: in the UK it is illegal to discriminate against women at work because of their sex").


If they're going to keep this test it really needs a massive rewrite...

civilservant

civilservant

Posted
Posted

ahem - 15 - fail...


Ian Jack today in Guardian on precisely this subject - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/14/ian-jack-what-is-britishness-citizenship-test


Having done the test, I can't work out what its aim is. There is a clear bias in favour of people who are able to digest and spew out facts and dates on demand i.e. people with at least a secondary education.


Questions such as "In which year did married women get the right to divorce ... a. 1837 b. 1857 c. 1875 d. 1882" - how do they prove true understanding?

If you were really interested in asking people about their understanding of British culture, you'd want to ask it in a less nit-picky way e.g. : "When did married women get the right to divorce ... a. in the 17th century b. in the 18th century c. in the 19th century d. in the 20th century" - which is probably why native Brits fall down so badly.

peterstorm1985

peterstorm1985

Posted
Posted

I've finally remembered what this all reminds me of - my history 'O' level. A collection of meaningless facts that I managed to learn off by heart to be spilled out on paper on the day and immediately forgotten.

Who cares when British women got the right to divorce, as long as they have it now? Surely that should be the point of the questions; to judge if someone can take an active and sociable part in our community today.

I'd like to see questions such as,

What places should you expect to queue?

Should you let your dog crap on the pavement and not clean up after it?

Is it OK to spit on the ground?

What are litter bins for?

Is it good to open doors for old people and those carrying heavy objects?


OK, so a few questions on the origins of Bonfire night, and how many days before Christmas you can expect to see Santa in his grotto if you go to Selfridges, won't do any harm but they shouldn't be the deciding factor.

civilservant

civilservant

Posted
Posted

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to see questions such as,

> What places should you expect to queue?

> Should you let your dog crap on the pavement and

> not clean up after it?

> Is it OK to spit on the ground?

> What are litter bins for?

> Is it good to open doors for old people and those

> carrying heavy objects?

>


Not so fast! At that rate a worryingly high proportion of the ED population would find itself consigned to Sangatte as a result of spectacularly bad test scores!

Moos

Moos

Posted
Posted

16. Packing a sleeping bag.


I'd be interested to know whether the Guardian were making a point by picking the most obscure questions they could or whether they're genuinely representative of the test. If they are representative, it's an outrageous cheat on the people made to take it. Knowing roughly what % of the population is Muslim is relevant but knowing whether it's 4.2% or 1.6% is irrelevant. Ditto between 13 and 16 million young people, the first year a woman could divorce her husband... rubbish. Bah.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Dave 3
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Dave 3 · Posted

      It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Sue
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Sue · Posted

      Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Dave 3
      Be careful on the pavements...

      By Dave 3 · Posted

      Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • Loutwo
      Franklins is being sold

      By Loutwo · Posted

      I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...