Britain - The Official Thread

[axletramp]

I've also used the NHS for what was arguably a cosmetic surgery at the time and is now almost impossible to have on the NHS. At no point did I play the system, I simply answered the questions and was surprised at what that eventually led too.

Breast augmentation.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Breast augmentation.

Funnily enough, not too far off.

Breast (singular) reduction. Originally went in having found a lump behind my nipple, turned out it was breast tissue. That didn't change much (little bigger) so went back after 12 months. Eventually was put in for lipo which wasn't very successful. I don't have a breast per se, more of a small donut of flesh behind the nipple that's not hugely visible but was very self conscious of originally. Got asked a bunch of time if I was an alcoholic, dope smoker or on roids by the doctors though. I've also never been obese, my testicles function to the best of my knowledge and I don't look like a eunuch.

It was all very odd for 18yr old me (21 when eventually had surgery).

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Noticed an article on the Daily Mail front page today condemning the release of the Trump gossip:

Not for Piers' opinion really, but would've thought for the DM publishing an unverified, salacious story about a political leader, by a single unnamed source, would sound pretty familiar.........

Funny that!

 

[Liquid]

but then for £4,000 a year out of your own pocket you could have some pretty serious health insurance.

As true as that might be, the problem with the idea is that I do not believe that taxes would subsequently decrease by an average of £4,000 per year per person. The contributions through tax would remain the same and be spent/wasted elsewhere.

You wouldn't suddenly find yourself flush with £4,000 in readies to go buy health insurance. You'd be paying the same you always were and suddenly realise that you need to find £4,000.

Granted, this is my natural cynicism when it comes to government and taxes talking.

 

[Touring Mars]

Rolf Harris is back in court again, though surely they could have found someone to sketch a better picture of him...

 

[axletramp]

Rolf Harris is back in court again, though surely they could have found someone to sketch a better picture of him...

They have.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Thanks to both the way the NHS is funded and the way it effortlessly hurls money away, I would be very surprised to find out that is the case.

The average amount contributed to the NHS annually by a UK taxpayer is £4,000, so you'd end up contributing, across your working lifetime, around £150,000 (2016 pounds, of course).

There's not a great many medical procedures that cost that much, even for multiple course and even once you've taken into account the fact that the NHS pays over the odds for equipment and drugs. You might hit it if you've had a few courses of chemotherapy and a liver transplant. And no, the US doesn't have it any better with its insurer-led system that sees similar incredible price-gouging, but then for £4,000 a year out of your own pocket you could have some pretty serious health insurance.

It's a very small and very unlucky number of people who will experience sufficient ill-health to be a net drain on the NHS rather than a net contributor.

The average contribution to the NHS is only £4000 if you use the mean though, most people won't be contributing anywhere near that because you'd have to be paying £20,000 a year in tax. Not arguing against your main point just thought I'd point that out

 

[Liquid]

I just want to remind you all that this cringey crossbreed of Maude Flanders and Alan Partridge was a front runner for the Prime Ministership.

No love for the been-here-longer-than-the-Saxons Celts, Andrea?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Where exactly does the NHS go? This winter is being a particularly hard one and although they tried to gloss over it by withholding certain statistics it's still got through that A+Es across the country are in crisis. Some say this is a Tory ploy to privatise but we should remember that it was during the Labour years that the PFI contracts were brought in, Mid Staffs occurred, and if we look at NHS Wales see that a Labour run NHS is pretty shambolic as well.

That said you can't run an efficient health service on this budget from the Tories, and I'd urge people to watch a TV show called "Hospital" on BBC 2 for good insight into how a modern hospital runs.

 

[polysmut]

Where exactly does the NHS go? This winter is being a particularly hard one and although they tried to gloss over it by withholding certain statistics it's still got through that A+Es across the country are in crisis. Some say this is a Tory ploy to privatise but we should remember that it was during the Labour years that the PFI contracts were brought in, Mid Staffs occurred, and if we look at NHS Wales see that a Labour run NHS is pretty shambolic as well.

That said you can't run an efficient health service on this budget from the Tories, and I'd urge people to watch a TV show called "Hospital" on BBC 2 for good insight into how a modern hospital runs.

But PFI was piloted in the John Major years.
Irrespective of party politics though, I think deliberate moves have been made towards privatisation.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The average contribution to the NHS is only £4000 if you use the mean though, most people won't be contributing anywhere near that because you'd have to be paying £20,000 a year in tax. Not arguing against your main point just thought I'd point that out

By the time you add income tax, VAT and more, you're probably not that far off...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not Britain but the UK... I was happy to read this evening that what goes around comes around and Martin McGuiness's retirement from the Northern Irish parliament is due to severe ill health.

 

[Spurgy 777]

By the time you add income tax, VAT and more, you're probably not that far off...

Well considering the median income is £22,000, it's unlikely that most people are paying £20,000 a year in tax, or even close to that.

 

[m8h3r]

Well considering the median income is £22,000, it's unlikely that most people are paying £20,000 a year in tax, or even close to that.

20k is about my wage right now and for what I do I'm paid handsomely but how much of that is taxed on I'm not sure.

 

[TenEightyOne]

20k is about my wage right now and for what I do I'm paid handsomely but how much of that is taxed on I'm not sure.

20% of everything above your £11,000 threshold, so roughly £1800 in PAYE.

 

[m8h3r]

20% of everything above your £11,000 threshold, so roughly £1800 in PAYE.

So not all that much considering things get split all sorts of ways.

 

[Carbonox]

Race relations adviser refuses to identify himself, behaves like a criminal, gets tased, and plays the victim card ASAP.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tions-adviser-mistaken-identity-a7536951.html

While I'm not familiar with what the law says about identification duties, I'm amazed he has the gall to pretend he's in the right after just doing something that any truly honest man wouldn't need to try.

Smells like he's either guilty of a crime himself, or a sovereign citizen.

 

[DG_Silva]

These people who get tasered for not following the police, how hard can it be just to behave yourself and do what they ask? Bearing in mind that they are expecting him to be a wanted criminal, why would they ask him politely to identify himself, regardless of what he actually does for a living? Someone's carrying a bag full of McCain's...

 

[ExigeEvan]

These people who get tasered for not following the police, how hard can it be just to behave yourself and do what they ask? Bearing in mind that they are expecting him to be a wanted criminal, why would they ask him politely to identify himself, regardless of what he actually does for a living? Someone's carrying a bag full of McCain's...

I actually think that was a complete misuse of a less-than-lethal device. Did the officer feel threatened? I doubt it. Was the man being aggressive? Not really. Tasers aren't supposed to replace officers being able to properly restrain someone. I'd be worried if 2 officers are struggling to restrain an unarmed, elderly gentleman in the street.

Yes, he should identify himself to the police. Yes, they were looking for a suspect. But they didn't treat him like he was a physical threat untill they themselves made it physical.

Not racist. Just crap policing.

 

[Joel]

Race relations adviser refuses to identify himself, behaves like a criminal, gets tased, and plays the victim card ASAP.

What exactly did the guy do to "behave like a criminal"?

 

[Carbonox]

What exactly did the guy do to "behave like a criminal"?

Got himself involved in a completely avoidable physical altercation.

Only the wanted man himself would have any credible cause to try and escape from the situation without cooperation.

 

[Joel]

Got himself involved in a completely avoidable physical altercation.

Only the wanted man himself would have any credible cause to try and escape from the situation without cooperation.

That's a pretty creative interpretation of the video. A person who has done nothing wrong and wants to go home has a perfectly credible reason not to talk to the police.

You're not obligated to identify yourself to police in the UK. The police need reasonable suspicion to arrest someone, and refusing to identify yourself is not reasonable suspicion. In this scenario he likely matched the description closely enough to create reasonable suspicion that he was the wanted man so the police would be allowed to arrest him to find his identity. Yes, if it had been me I would have identified myself and gone along with my day. But he was not obligated to do so and not identifying yourself is not "acting like a criminal". The police weren't wrong to arrest this guy and find out his identity but they needlessly escalated the situation and tased him.

Your other bit about how it "smells like he's guilty of a crime" is really bizzare. The guy was arrested and identified by police, if he was a wanted criminal don't you think they'd have figured that out when they arrested him? I mean theoretically he could have committed a crime nobody's discovered yet but there's absolutely nothing that suggests he's any more likely to be a secret criminal than any other person on the face of the earth. You just fabricated a hunch out of thin air.

 

[DG_Silva]

I actually think that was a complete misuse of a less-than-lethal device... Yes, he should identify himself to the police. Yes, they were looking for a suspect. But they didn't treat him like he was a physical threat untill they themselves made it physical.

Not racist. Just crap policing.

There is nothing there that I will disagree with, it's all completely correct; however it could all have been avoided by, however he was asked or told to, revealing his identity - is it really that hard?

@Joel, you are correct in saying in saying that you don't have to talk to the police, but I will always say hello if I pass an officer. It shows respect for them doing a difficult and unwanted job as I was always brought up to do, but it also makes it easy to engage if you or they need to. Every person has their own way of conducting themselves, but being deliberately obtuse or obstructive is not going to do you any favours.

However I do agree with both of you that things shouldn't have escalated that quickly, whatever the background to the case.

 

[Carbonox]

That's a pretty creative interpretation of the video. A person who has done nothing wrong and wants to go home has a perfectly credible reason not to talk to the police.

You're not obligated to identify yourself to police in the UK. The police need reasonable suspicion to arrest someone, and refusing to identify yourself is not reasonable suspicion. In this scenario he likely matched the description closely enough to create reasonable suspicion that he was the wanted man so the police would be allowed to arrest him to find his identity. Yes, if it had been me I would have identified myself and gone along with my day. But he was not obligated to do so and not identifying yourself is not "acting like a criminal". The police weren't wrong to arrest this guy and find out his identity but they needlessly escalated the situation and tased him.

Your other bit about how it "smells like he's guilty of a crime" is really bizzare. The guy was arrested and identified by police, if he was a wanted criminal don't you think they'd have figured that out when they arrested him? I mean theoretically he could have committed a crime nobody's discovered yet but there's absolutely nothing that suggests he's any more likely to be a secret criminal than any other person on the face of the earth. You just fabricated a hunch out of thin air.

I didn't fabricate anything. I said that him acting like that is really suspicious, suggesting that even though he wasn't the guy they were looking for, he could've easily had some other dirt on him, because why else be so absolute about refusing to tell them basic information?

It would've only wasted a minute of his life at best assuming they had additional questions...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Only the wanted man himself would have any credible cause to try and escape from the situation without cooperation.

Huh? Every single day people refuse to give their details to the police, wanted or not. I've personally done so on several occasions (and refused a search of my vehicle on one occasion - although I was required to identify myself that time), they're only the police. They either need to have a reasonable suspicion that you should be detained in connection with a crime or they need a warrant from a judge.

It would be a pretty grim sitauation where the police could stop and detain anybody they liked.

 

[ExigeEvan]

There is nothing there that I will disagree with, it's all completely correct; however it could all have been avoided by, however he was asked or told to, revealing his identity - is it really that hard?

It's not hard, but he represents a community that is statistically far, far more likely to be stopped and searched by the police just for going to the shops.

It's because of this issue that many black inner-city communities are reluctant to help the police unless they are compelled to do so. In this case he wasn't compelled so he chose not to.

It's a position I've considered many times myself, but then I'm a white 20 something that has never been pulled over or stopped by police. I've never had an experience with the police, let alone a negative one that could influence wether I was willing to voluntarily offer my information. He's probably had dozens.

 

[Sprite]

He had no reason to identify himself, but you'd think being an advocate of good relations for his community and knowing himself to be innocent, he could have just offered up his identity and then been on his way home.

Did the police use excessive force given the situation? Yes I think so.

As @ExigeEvan said "Not racist. Just crap policing."

 

[Carbonox]

Huh? Every single day people refuse to give their details to the police, wanted or not. I've personally done so on several occasions (and refused a search of my vehicle on one occasion - although I was required to identify myself that time), they're only the police. They either need to have a reasonable suspicion that you should be detained in connection with a crime or they need a warrant from a judge.

It would be a pretty grim sitauation where the police could stop and detain anybody they liked.

Wait, so the only reason you refused and inconvenienced them was because they were "only the police"?

Dedicating a short moment to let them know you're not the person they're looking for shouldn't be that difficult, unless you're genuinely in a rush. I don't think I'll ever understand people who decide to refrain for no good reason - you're only placing yourself on the suspect list at best by doing that.

I'll be sure to identify myself next time I'm stopped for any reason, just to compensate for behavior like that.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Wait, so the only reason you refused and inconvenienced them was because they were "only the police"?

Dedicating a short moment to let them know you're not the person they're looking for shouldn't be that difficult, unless you're genuinely in a rush. I don't think I'll ever understand people who decide to refrain for no good reason - you're only placing yourself on the suspect list at best by doing that.

I'll be sure to identify myself next time I'm stopped for any reason, just to compensate for behavior like that.

Because it's a short step to a totalitarian state if people are required to identify themselves to the police when going about their normal business. Especially when they are simply walking the street.

Refusing to identify yourself doesn't make you a suspect. That's even worse policing to assume that all citizens are suspect until proven otherwise.

Driving is a slightly different context, as driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Hmmm, interesting ideas being put forward here