UKers know anything about this new language test?

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:07 am

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 7,10507795^421,00.html

Given that someone with a degree in English who's lived in Britain for 44 years has failed the test, I'm thinking it's more of some asinine testing of pronunciation and dialect rather than fluency in the language.

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:23 am

Link's not opening for me.

BigMaki · Post by **BigMaki** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:42 am

The link broke because of the carat or something. Hopefully this will work...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 21,00.html

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:51 am

Is that for real? It could just be me, but that reads like the onion. I'm getting inkling's that its not. I didn't read it as the guy failed the test anyway, just that he's expected to sit it regardless.

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:58 am

It said he was rejected due to the new rules, so am I wrong in taking that to mean he failed the test?

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 1:58 pm

I misread it. Still, given the amount of british citizens who can barely string a sentence together, I have a hard time believing its for real. Anyone shed any light?

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:10 pm

I have found no references to this test on the BBC or Reuters websites. However, I found the following information sheet at the Home Office website:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... on_as.html

It makes reference to the legal requirement that Your knowledge of the language must be sufficient for you to fulfil your duties as a citizen, and to mix with people with whom you live and work. If because of a disability you cannot speak the language, it will be sufficient if you can communicate, for example, by writing or using British sign language. If you are aged 65 or over or suffer from physical or mental disability, you may not have to meet this requirement.

That then links through to the following information on who decides on whether somebody has the sufficient knowledge of the language:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... ement.html

Taking this evidence at face value, the story from the Australian mystifies me. In an INXS stylee.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:11 pm

According to one report two Australians ,including a knight who has lived in Britain for 44 years and a writer with a degree in English, have been rejected under the new rules.

Sounds like so much fictional drivel, to be honest...

Journalistic standards of research aren't what they used to be.

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:13 pm

Exactly what I meant when I said it reads like the onion.

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:29 pm

Of course, there is the fact that, if he's a knight, he must already be a British citizen (born, not naturalised, iirc). Otherwise it's an honourary KBE, which means he's not actually a knight. Just a pretend one. A kdusk, if you will.

King Fargo · Post by **King Fargo** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:10 am

Crazy Poms.

Oh well, at least Yanks are more likely to fail the language test than Aussies. Yet another advantage of using British English.