I am growing more and more disturbed by something - no, its not the apparent final breakup of Cheryl and Ashley Cole, its not that Colleen Nolan is leaving Loose Women, its not even how Amy Winehouse's father is handing out her clothing to fans in front of her house - what has me disturbed is the influx of American stores and products to the UK market.
The first major introduction (or re-intoduction actually) was in June 2010 when Taco Bell opened at Lakeside. Americans all across the UK rejoiced and begged Taco Bell UK to come to their town, and I will admit "back then", I was rather happy about this and pledged to go ASAP (although I never actually went until last weekend and strangely enough, honestly, it wasnt very good). Then you started seeing Mountain Dew (albeit some icky energy drink version) in every store, then I discovered (with absolute delight and now incredible guilt at my delight) that Bucca Di Beppo has a few restaurants in the UK, then Forever 21 opened on Oxford Street and news broke today that William-Sonoma will be coming to London in early 2012 ... and now disturbia has set in...Where does it end??
What's wrong with what is already here? I don't want my High Street looking like an American shopping mall. I don't like the idea that something is "better" because it's American. I like embracing the British alternatives for things I used to enjoy and discovering new things to crave. I like going back to America and re-enjoying things I used to love with new vigor and appreciation. I've already lived in America; now I live here and I don't want it to try to be the same place.
Am I the only American expat who doesnt embrace the Americanization of her new country? Am I the only one who now wants to go buy cheap clothes at Primark, eat at Zizzis and buy some overpriced kitchen items at Harrods in protest of the new American options?
I'm afraid I probably am...
Friday, 29 July 2011
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
The post in which I applaud the UKBA
Not that you would have noticed since the media is wall to wall coverage with "Hackgate" ( I am so over it personally), but there have been two rather interesting news pieces regarding immigration in the last week.
It started with the UKBA's consultation on family migration which laid out suggestions (only suggestions at this point) for some changes to the family migration path (spouse visas, family visitor visas, dependent children, elderly depenedent visas, etc). The document is wordy, but you really should read it. The following suggestions stood out the most to me:
1. The creation of something that resembles a UK Bill of Rights which will superceed ECHR article 8. The consultation reads: This government believes in human rights. Everyone has a right under ECHR Article 8 to respect for their private and family life, but it is not an absolute right. It is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, and in particular where it is necessary for public protection or for the economic well-being of the UK, which includes maintaining our immigration controls.
2. The consulation also appears to suggest that the maintance requirements will be increased and that the sponsor in the UK shall not be reliant on public funds. Family migrants must have access to enough money to support themselves, without their British citizen or UK-resident spouse or partner seeking, or needing, help from the taxpayer. We do not want to see migrant families struggling to get by, living in overcrowded housing or dependent on welfare. If as a British citizen or a person settled here, you cannot support your foreign spouse or partner in a reasonable way of life in the UK, you cannot expect the taxpayer to do so for you. This consultation paper sets out how we propose to change the maintenance and other requirements for those sponsoring a spouse or partner to ensure that this is so.
It goes on to quote the maintenance requirements for other countries including Denmark which says that all sponsors be able to maintain spouse and the sponsor cannot have claimed benefits in the three years prior to a marriage application. But the Danes don't stop there - the sponsor must also post a bond of around £12,000(!) against any future claim on public funds.
3. There is also a suggestion to extend the probationary period before spouses and partners can apply for settlement (ILR) to five years. I have to say that eventhough I am just about two weeks away from being able to apply for my ILR, I totally agree with this suggestion. In the instance of a sham marriage or "marriage of convenience", two years is not long enough to test the genuiness of the relationship. Nor, in my opinion, is two years long enough to have "earned" access to all state benefits (especially if the migrant has never worked in the UK). The consulation futher explains: Access to the labour market, to the NHS (including maternity services) and to schooling will be unaffected by this change. Family migrants in work will continue to have access to contributory benefits (for example contribution-based jobseeker‟s allowance, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance and widow's benefit) once they have made at least 2 years National Insurance contributions, and the entitlement of the spouse or partner who is a British citizen or is settled here to child benefit and child tax credit will be unaffected.
4. In the instance of a spouse visa, the couple should be in a relationship for at least 12 months before applying and the applicant should have an "attachment" to the UK. Where the couple cannot meet this criterion, for example because theirs is or will be an arranged marriage and they have not yet been together as a couple for that period, we could grant 12 months‟ initial temporary leave to enable them to meet this criterion, and ask them to apply for further leave after 12 months. This would enable a further assessment to be made at that point of whether theirs is a genuine and continuing relationship. The document again quotes the Danish system re: the "attachemnt critera": In order to meet the attachment requirement, the applicant for a marriage visa must have visited Denmark at least twice and the sponsor must have resided legally in Denmark for 15 years. The attachment requirement is not applicable if either party has held Danish citizenship or resided legally in Denmark for at least 28 years.
I won't bother too much with my own opinion since it matters very little, but bravo, UKBA, bravo.
In other news: An American woman apparently thought it was ok for her to come to the UK on a visitors visa, settle permanently and start a family and is now arguing that she should be allowed to stay without ever being granted a settlement visa. Tragically, she lost her baby, which is very sad, but I am glad that the UKBA don't appear to be ready to allow her to use the baby's death as reason why she should be allowed to skip all the proper steps of immigration. I think she should consider herself lucky that all they are asking is that she return to the US to do things the proper way.
There.. now don't you feel very well informed? :)
It started with the UKBA's consultation on family migration which laid out suggestions (only suggestions at this point) for some changes to the family migration path (spouse visas, family visitor visas, dependent children, elderly depenedent visas, etc). The document is wordy, but you really should read it. The following suggestions stood out the most to me:
1. The creation of something that resembles a UK Bill of Rights which will superceed ECHR article 8. The consultation reads: This government believes in human rights. Everyone has a right under ECHR Article 8 to respect for their private and family life, but it is not an absolute right. It is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, and in particular where it is necessary for public protection or for the economic well-being of the UK, which includes maintaining our immigration controls.
2. The consulation also appears to suggest that the maintance requirements will be increased and that the sponsor in the UK shall not be reliant on public funds. Family migrants must have access to enough money to support themselves, without their British citizen or UK-resident spouse or partner seeking, or needing, help from the taxpayer. We do not want to see migrant families struggling to get by, living in overcrowded housing or dependent on welfare. If as a British citizen or a person settled here, you cannot support your foreign spouse or partner in a reasonable way of life in the UK, you cannot expect the taxpayer to do so for you. This consultation paper sets out how we propose to change the maintenance and other requirements for those sponsoring a spouse or partner to ensure that this is so.
It goes on to quote the maintenance requirements for other countries including Denmark which says that all sponsors be able to maintain spouse and the sponsor cannot have claimed benefits in the three years prior to a marriage application. But the Danes don't stop there - the sponsor must also post a bond of around £12,000(!) against any future claim on public funds.
3. There is also a suggestion to extend the probationary period before spouses and partners can apply for settlement (ILR) to five years. I have to say that eventhough I am just about two weeks away from being able to apply for my ILR, I totally agree with this suggestion. In the instance of a sham marriage or "marriage of convenience", two years is not long enough to test the genuiness of the relationship. Nor, in my opinion, is two years long enough to have "earned" access to all state benefits (especially if the migrant has never worked in the UK). The consulation futher explains: Access to the labour market, to the NHS (including maternity services) and to schooling will be unaffected by this change. Family migrants in work will continue to have access to contributory benefits (for example contribution-based jobseeker‟s allowance, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance and widow's benefit) once they have made at least 2 years National Insurance contributions, and the entitlement of the spouse or partner who is a British citizen or is settled here to child benefit and child tax credit will be unaffected.
4. In the instance of a spouse visa, the couple should be in a relationship for at least 12 months before applying and the applicant should have an "attachment" to the UK. Where the couple cannot meet this criterion, for example because theirs is or will be an arranged marriage and they have not yet been together as a couple for that period, we could grant 12 months‟ initial temporary leave to enable them to meet this criterion, and ask them to apply for further leave after 12 months. This would enable a further assessment to be made at that point of whether theirs is a genuine and continuing relationship. The document again quotes the Danish system re: the "attachemnt critera": In order to meet the attachment requirement, the applicant for a marriage visa must have visited Denmark at least twice and the sponsor must have resided legally in Denmark for 15 years. The attachment requirement is not applicable if either party has held Danish citizenship or resided legally in Denmark for at least 28 years.
I won't bother too much with my own opinion since it matters very little, but bravo, UKBA, bravo.
In other news: An American woman apparently thought it was ok for her to come to the UK on a visitors visa, settle permanently and start a family and is now arguing that she should be allowed to stay without ever being granted a settlement visa. Tragically, she lost her baby, which is very sad, but I am glad that the UKBA don't appear to be ready to allow her to use the baby's death as reason why she should be allowed to skip all the proper steps of immigration. I think she should consider herself lucky that all they are asking is that she return to the US to do things the proper way.
There.. now don't you feel very well informed? :)
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
So You Want to Expatriate...?
...but can't decide where to go? I'd cross Luanda in Angola off my list if I were you as its just been named the city with the highest cost of living for expats.
As far as I can gather, this survey is done mostly for global companies who may be moving staff to various places around the world. Cities are ranked by the "strength or weakness of the relevant currency against the US dollar over the prior 12 months" and "price movements over the prior 12 months compared to those in New York City".
The top five most expensive cities are Luanda, Tokyo, N'Djamena (Chad), Moscow and Geneva. (I'll give out major brownie points to anyone smarter than me who can figure out why it would be so expensive to live in Angola or Chad)
If you're sure you want to end up in the UK, it will come as no surprise that a move to Scotland or Northern Ireland would be much more affordable than living in London. (duh). The UK cities on the list included London (18), Aberdeen (144), Glasgow (148) Birmingham (150) and Belfast (178).
Wondering what the least expensive place to live is? At number 214, Karachi in Pakistan is at the bottom of the list.
As far as I can gather, this survey is done mostly for global companies who may be moving staff to various places around the world. Cities are ranked by the "strength or weakness of the relevant currency against the US dollar over the prior 12 months" and "price movements over the prior 12 months compared to those in New York City".
The top five most expensive cities are Luanda, Tokyo, N'Djamena (Chad), Moscow and Geneva. (I'll give out major brownie points to anyone smarter than me who can figure out why it would be so expensive to live in Angola or Chad)
If you're sure you want to end up in the UK, it will come as no surprise that a move to Scotland or Northern Ireland would be much more affordable than living in London. (duh). The UK cities on the list included London (18), Aberdeen (144), Glasgow (148) Birmingham (150) and Belfast (178).
Wondering what the least expensive place to live is? At number 214, Karachi in Pakistan is at the bottom of the list.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Summer Solstice (and something much better)
Today is the Summer Solstice - the longest day of the year, the day the Earth's and the moon's axial tilt is most inclined towards the sun, and the day a select group of people (druids/pagans/whatever they wish to be called) gather to watch the sunrise at Stonehenge.
Here's some photos of this year's celebration, but truthfully, I really couldn't care less about the Solstice or Stonehenge, I just needed an excuse to tell you about this place that is much much cooler...
 |
| Carhenge Photo: Wikipedia |
Behold Carhenge! A Stonehenge "replica" in Alliance, Nebraska built using 38 vintage American cars painted grey and errected in exactly the same positions as Stonehenge's stones. Oh and unlike Stonehenge, its absolutely free to visit.
Totally Awesome.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
The Next Big Thing
In honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 (a celebration of 60 years on the throne), a current town in the UK will be crowned a city. This may sound a bit odd to those of who not familiar with the idea of city status in the UK, but to the cities who have applied this is a big deal.
As you may know, historically, a place in the UK could only call itself a city if it had a cathedral, but now there are a variety of factors (including, but not limited to population) that determine whether a town can be called a city and city status isn't handed out willy nilly. There are actually only 66 cities in all of the UK (A full list can be found here). The newest additions to the City Club are Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton which were given the status in 2000 to mark the new millennium, and Preston, Stirling and Newport which were awarded city status in 2002 for the Queen's Golden Jubilee In total, only 14 new cities were created during the 20th century.
Twenty-six towns are in the running for the Diamond Jubilee City Upgrade (it's not really called that, but seriously, what else do you call it?) including Chelmsford, Milton Keynes, Coleraine, Perth, Doncaster, Croydon, Bournemouth and Reading.
My money is on Reading - literally. They are the odds-on favourite according to Paddy Power at 11/2, followed by Doncaster and then Bournemouth. Wait... Whats that? You didn't know you could place bets on this kind of thing? You're telling me you've never been in one of the millions of betting shops you see in every town and probably pass by multiple times a day? Well, listen up - I'm not normally one to advocate potentially addictive activities such as gambling, but you really haven't lived until you've placed a bet on the colour of the Queen's hat at her next public appearance or the nationality of the next Pope.
But back to this city thing - what will the winner get? Well... nothing really, except I suppose they could do a "nanny nanny boo boo" dance in front of the lowly towns, and probably more importantly, I think they can then have a city council which gives them a bit more power which apparently can even usurp the power of the county council (surely another reason to do a "nanny nanny boo boo dance"!).
Go Reading!
As you may know, historically, a place in the UK could only call itself a city if it had a cathedral, but now there are a variety of factors (including, but not limited to population) that determine whether a town can be called a city and city status isn't handed out willy nilly. There are actually only 66 cities in all of the UK (A full list can be found here). The newest additions to the City Club are Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton which were given the status in 2000 to mark the new millennium, and Preston, Stirling and Newport which were awarded city status in 2002 for the Queen's Golden Jubilee In total, only 14 new cities were created during the 20th century.
Twenty-six towns are in the running for the Diamond Jubilee City Upgrade (it's not really called that, but seriously, what else do you call it?) including Chelmsford, Milton Keynes, Coleraine, Perth, Doncaster, Croydon, Bournemouth and Reading.
My money is on Reading - literally. They are the odds-on favourite according to Paddy Power at 11/2, followed by Doncaster and then Bournemouth. Wait... Whats that? You didn't know you could place bets on this kind of thing? You're telling me you've never been in one of the millions of betting shops you see in every town and probably pass by multiple times a day? Well, listen up - I'm not normally one to advocate potentially addictive activities such as gambling, but you really haven't lived until you've placed a bet on the colour of the Queen's hat at her next public appearance or the nationality of the next Pope.
But back to this city thing - what will the winner get? Well... nothing really, except I suppose they could do a "nanny nanny boo boo" dance in front of the lowly towns, and probably more importantly, I think they can then have a city council which gives them a bit more power which apparently can even usurp the power of the county council (surely another reason to do a "nanny nanny boo boo dance"!).
Go Reading!
Friday, 17 June 2011
Mythbusting: Royal Ascot is Posh
I went to Royal Ascot last year and I think if I'm honest, I expected something very high brow, very proper and very British. What I experienced was indeed very British, but to say it was proper or posh would be a lie. I'm sorry to any of you who think otherwise, but unless you are in the Royal Enclosure, the truth is that Royal Ascot (even in the Grandstand) is a glorified piss up. It's usually good fun and the best reason to buy a new dress and head piece of your choice, but posh it is not.
I didn't go this year, which is probably for the best because a) it rained heavily the morning of Ladies Day and that would have totally ruined my hair and b) THIS happened:
I'll leave it to the Daily Mail to fill you in on all the details, but basically some drunken hooligans got in a huge fight, at least one person was arrested for Class B drug possession and the organizers of the event have introduced a "drug honesty box", asking racegoers to deposit their drugs in said box before entering the gates. Yes, seriously.
Sure, there's a dress code, so most people are dressed in their best (a highly subjective term), and the Queen is usually there, but contrary to popular belief, it is not an event reserved for the poshest of the posh.
I think an older gentleman I met at last year's Ladies Day summed it up best when he glanced at the woman next to us with her orange skin and poorly fitting dress, shoving a sausage in her mouth and said "its true what they say - you can't polish a turd".
I didn't go this year, which is probably for the best because a) it rained heavily the morning of Ladies Day and that would have totally ruined my hair and b) THIS happened:
 |
| Royal Ascot Brawl Photo: Daily Mail |
Sure, there's a dress code, so most people are dressed in their best (a highly subjective term), and the Queen is usually there, but contrary to popular belief, it is not an event reserved for the poshest of the posh.
I think an older gentleman I met at last year's Ladies Day summed it up best when he glanced at the woman next to us with her orange skin and poorly fitting dress, shoving a sausage in her mouth and said "its true what they say - you can't polish a turd".
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Scampi vs. scampi
I am sure there is some psychological term for this, but ever since I heard the news that there is a looming scampi shortage, all I want is scampi; and lots of it.
As I was munching on some last night, I remembered the first time I ordered scampi in England and thought I might be kind enough to save any other American newcomers the potential confusion.
British scampi are equally delicious, breaded, fried, fishy bits... maybe sort of comparable to large popcorn shrimp, but they arent shrimp at all. British scampi is supposed to be meat from the tail of the Norway Lobster (sometimes called a langoustine) and if you see it sold as "whole tail scampi", this should be what you get, but otherwise it could be any form of breaded and fried fish/shellfish chunks. Tip: Stick to the whole tail stuff if you can. They are usually served with chips (french fries) and peas if you are unlucky enough to not get a substitute (I hate peas!). Dip them in tartar sauce and they are tasty tasty!
As I was munching on some last night, I remembered the first time I ordered scampi in England and thought I might be kind enough to save any other American newcomers the potential confusion.
When most Americans think of scampi, they probably envision a heavenly dish of shrimp/prawn in a cholesterol busting garlic butter sauce maybe with some white wine and possibly served over some pasta or with a hunk of bread to soak up all the buttery goodness. This is what I wanted when I ordered scampi in a pub (ok, it was a Harvester restaurant if I'm honest, and probably an early bird special if I'm really honest):
 |
| American Scampi; Photo: Jon Sullivan |
Talk about a school girl error! This is what I ended up with:
 |
| British Scampi; Photo: FishFanatics |
Do you think I can clear out enough space in my freezer to stock up on scampi to get me through the pending shortage!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)