"I have been but little in," said Ninian hastily...

UGlas wrote to ask for info on my undergrad studies in London, wanting to know what kind of visa I entered under at that time (just watch--there will be some sort of tsurrus because I didn't gte a formal student visa...) What I found entertaining was that I *still have* the actual passport I used at the time. The DOS gave it back (as they will do, if you ask) when I got its replacement. Hysterically funny to see what a geek I looked like, back in 1985. :-)

Also, I got an entry and an exit stamp in 1985, but when Chris and I went for our (delayed) honeymoon in 1988, I got an entry but no exit stamp. Can I use that to claim that I've been resident for 25 years? :-)

My second passport has indications of the vagary of the immigration officer that are so distressing to those of us of a slightly OCD variety. Page 8 is the first page for visas; it has entry stamps from the UK for 2002 and 2005 (May), for Canada from 2005 (transit--September), and a re-entry stamp from US DHS from 2006 (apparently we didn't start doing that until that year). The next page has entry stamps from the UK (2005--September), Canada 2006, and US re-entry 2007. Page 10 has my marriage visa from 2008 and its confirming IO stamp, and the facing page, 11, has the US re-entry stamp from 2008 and UK and US stamps from 2010.

If you're counting, you'll notice there's something missing--the UK entry stamp from 2007. Yes, the random bastard skipped pages 12, 13, and 14 (all blank, as were 10 and 11 at the time) and planted it on page 15!

My newest passport is as yet marked only by a DHA re-entry stamp from last October. Apparently Canadian customs and immigration didn't even see fit to give me an entry stamp when I visited the Maritimes last autumn.

I'm starting to think about things I'll need to be dealing with related to The Move. I'll probably post about some others later on (packing/moving/storage of world goods, what to bring/leave, car storage, old flat evacuation, new flat hunting, the visa fezzle), but right now one question I have is about phones.

At the moment, I have a mobile plan through a US carrier that has voice, messaging, and data services that are attached to my iPhone 4. Now, they have "global" plans, but my impression is that they are probably pretty extortionate and that I'd be a lot better off cancelling my service (I think the service contract will be up next month, so I can do that without penalty) and signing up with someone new in the UK for the year (+?) that I'll be there.

Question is, can I use my beloved iPhone? Am I going to have to do something funky to it before I can use it on another network? I used to be tech-savvy, but I readily admit that when it comes to the world of mobile phones, I'm close to being someone's old grandad.

More commentary on the Tories' proposed "balance the budget on the backs of the poor" legislation. In case anyone has missed the "bedroom tax" madness, what it boils down to is this:

people in social housing with one spare bedroom will have their housing benefit cut by 14%, while those with two or more unoccupied rooms will see it slashed by 25%.

the one small detail being that

while [surveys suggest that] there are currently 180,000 households that are "underoccupying two-bedroom homes", there are far fewer smaller properties in the social housing sector available to move into. Last year only 85,000 one-bedroom homes became available.

So, in a modern version of Morton's Fork, those single people who are already so poor that they need help paying for a place to live must either move to a smaller space (which fewer than half of them will be able to do) or see their assistance cut.

Because, as we all know, it's the benefits received by the needy that government always overspends on, not tax breaks to corporations, salaries to senior leaders, sweetheart no-bid deals with contractors, or big-ticket defense items.

As a sidelight, confirmation of what I've always suspected: that far fewer Brits rent than do Americans. One of the sites mentioned in the article says that, in the UK, "over nine million people now [rent] their home from a private landlord". That means that roughly 15% of UK residents live in rented accommodation. According to the National Multi Housing Council, 32% of Americans live in rented housing. Not only are more Britons going to be looking for smaller places to live because of this ridiculous law, but there is a much smaller market in the UK to begin with for rental housing.

So, the end of the calendar year is rapidly approaching, and I'm looking ahead to next year. I want to come to some sort of closure, one way or the other, about where I'm going to live for the next year or two.

One of the options that I was considering is postgraduate study, possibly in the UK. One of the things that keeps giving me pause, though, is the subject of my cats.

I'm not going to leave them behind, even with the kindest of friends or relatives. I've taken care of the rabies issue by having them chipped, vaccinated, and tested, so they should not need to go into quarantine.

But I'm [revised: more than] a bit apprehensive about the ease of finding a place to live. With no prospect of being able to stay for more than a year or two of study, there's no point in even considering buying property (as a nonresident with no UK credit record, there's also probably zero chance of getting a mortgage anyway). And every time I look for rental accommodations, almost all of them say "no pets" (a search today on ESPC.com turned up 7 properties that the search engine claimed were "pets considered", 4 of which clearly stated "no pets" in the listing text and only one of which said "pets MAY be considered"). A search on Gumtree found nothing. And you can't even search on the subject on sites like s1homes or citylets.

This is a major issue for me. "Just turn up and see what's available" is not going to be an issue. And--as much as I long to live in the UK--I'm already having trouble justifying to myself the expense of taking a year or more off from working and moving 3,000 miles when I've no real chance to settle there. Not begin able to take the cats would cast the deciding vote in that internal debate.

Is it really totally unheard of for renters to have pets? What do people who have pets do if they can't buy a place? Live in a cardboard box? Or is there some source of information that I'm missing?

ETA: Well, this seems to answer my question. :-( I've seen a number of message boards where people ask the same question, and the common replies seem to be (a) just don't have a pet, (b) have a pet and lie about it/don't tell the landlord (that's a nonstarter for me), and (c) just call all the people who say "no pets" anyway and ask them if they will change their mind (one poster actually tried that feeble-minded advice and said they gave up after asking six different landlords or agencies).

Aimee-Ffion Edwards.

That is all.

I'm just starting to watch the televised version of Jeffrey Archer's First Among Equals. A new Conservative MP, being advised by his scout, is told his suit is too boisterous (it is, god help us, dark blue with an unobtrusive pinstripe: this *is* set in 1964...)

Scout: Once the Conservatives are back in power, sir, you might want to wear that. Something more subdued until then, though, I think. People might want to vote for Tom Brown; no one wants to vote for Flashman.

What a multitude of little digs: the implication that perhaps, as a new boy, he is a bit too goody-two-shoes, like Tom Brown. But that, at the same time, his taste is that of a crude, drunken bully (the story takes place before the elevation of that fictional person to his later status of heroic, knighted, military coward by his second chronicler). And, of course, the little pun pointing out that his suit is just too flashy.

For this link to an interesting article on noodling around with maps.

Mmmm. I do love me some maps.

The UK government is delaying but not halting plans to kill up to 70% of badgers in some areas.

This and other articles and comments point out that Ireland, which practices badger eradication like the UK, still has bovine TB problems. But Germany, which does not kill huge swathes of its badger population, has no bovine TB problem.

Crazy idea here, but why not vaccinate cattle against TB?