Britain - The Official Thread

[AbeFroman75]

Of course it was, those firearms were illegal. But tell me how effective you think even a mandatory gun confiscation would be in the US?

Lol. Good luck. I'm not giving up any of my guns no matter how many restrictions CA puts on me. Speaking of which, I just remembered I need to convert my ARs and AK to get rid of evil features before the 30th of this month or else I turn into a felon. Yay!

I'd put money that the vast majority would tell the government to stick it up their pooper.

Oh, many would use the term "boating accident" As in if they come for the guns you'd tell them you lost them in a boating accident.

That's exactly how effective it would be in Australia if people weren't inclined to give up their firearms. We're not really known for our subtlety or respect for authority.

Genuinely curious, but are you guys mistrustful of the government in any appreciable manner? I ask because that is actually a big reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment and a large reason for the refusal to give up our right. Granted the way our country was founded was completely different to yours so I imagine the distrust isn't codified in your framework.

And you can't exactly go door to door and take them from people, particularly when large numbers of guns aren't registered. Either they hand them in or they don't. If they don't, the government will never know.

I'm sure the state of CA knows that what guns I own but a national gun registry for all non NFA items (National Firearms Act of 1934) is not going to happen and that's something I'm happy about as I don't see a reason for one. If you do own a machine gun (full auto) then I'm pretty sure you are part of a registry as those are very heavily regulated, not to mention insanely expensive.

They also had a secondary buyback in 2003 when they changed the law again, and there have been a number of amnesties where people could hand in firearms without any consequences. There seems to be continued ongoing support, probably because it seems to work for us.

I seem to remember reading that the number of guns legally owned in Australia is back up to pre-ban numbers and that gun crime is still way down. I could be wrong, I figured you would know more than I do regarding Australian matters.

It all worked because people were willing to hand their firearms in. I don't see that happening in the US. It's just not how your culture works at this stage of history. I think trying to pass such a law in the US would be political suicide, and attempting to enforce such a law would risk riots and armed insurrection.

Recently there have been more than a few Congressmen that have come out and said they want a gun confiscation (specifically AR15s) which is nice because they're finally telling the truth instead of lying and ridiculing the pro-2a crowd as paranoid. Even Obama when he used to mock gun owners with "The NRA is lying to you, nobody is coming for your guns." Then say "I want to look at what Australia and the UK did." (paraphrasing obviously) which is like saying, I don't want to do what Australia did, I just like what what Australia did."
..now Republicans deserve the most criticism. I expect the democrats to keep chipping away at our rights, but the Republicans do nothing to preserve or reinstate things. We had a few bills that would have granted us the ability to purchase suppressors without the major pain of dealing with the NFA forms (it can take over a year to be approved) and give national reciprocity for CCW holders...but the Republicans didn't bother, even though they now had Trump in office and he would have gladly signed them.

I'm talking more along the lines of "Plane hit by birds on takeoff but pilot manages to land safely". I agree you don't need media attention for people just doing their jobs, but I'd like to see more positive stories on police who do their jobs exceptionally well as well as exceptionally poorly. Like the one I posted above.

I couldn't agree with you more.

BTW I hope you saw the mistake I made and now those numbers can give you a better assessment on the "irrational part."

 

[Imari]

Genuinely curious, but are you guys mistrustful of the government in any appreciable manner? I ask because that is actually a big reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment and a large reason for the refusal to give up our right. Granted the way our country was founded was completely different to yours so I imagine the distrust isn't codified in your framework.

Not to the same extent as the US we're not, no. You should remember though that the US also wanted to avoid a standing army at all costs, since that had been one of the big tools of oppression the British used against them. They thought a militia was better, as a militia can't be used to oppress the population and it doesn't cost the country money to "employ" soldiers in peacetime.

The "right to bear arms" culture in the US is a lot more complex than it first appears, and the current views of the Constitution and Amendments aren't necessarily what the authors had in mind. There's nothing wrong with that, laws and cultures change over time, but a lot of the militant (ha!) gun ownership culture seems pretty recent to me.

I seem to remember reading that the number of guns legally owned in Australia is back up to pre-ban numbers and that gun crime is still way down. I could be wrong, I figured you would know more than I do regarding Australian matters.

It's probably there or thereabouts. They didn't actually get rid of that many guns as a proportion of overall ownership with the buybacks and the amnesties. Like it I say, it's about culture. Australia is a society where while there's plenty of gun owners, they're willing to put up with the extreme limitations that are placed upon them. Licensing is thorough, you have to be able to prove a "legitimate purpose" for the gun (which can be as simple as belonging to a gun club), I believe you usually have to go through some training and demonstrate that you have an approved container in which to keep the weapon (and they're pretty serious, gun safe bolted through the floor is about the minimum if I recall). It depends which class of gun you're aiming to own, but if you want a handgun or a semi-auto rifle it can be an arduous process. Anything even moderately military related is basically impossible.

It boils down to functionality and usefulness. People should be able to get guns if they need them, but only up to what is required for purpose. As the guns become more "misusable" for want of a better word, the licensing requirements go up. I see it as similar to cars and trucks. You can get a car license pretty easily. Medium and heavy truck licenses are harder, because while it's technically the same thing there's greater skill and a greater duty of care involved.

I think one of the best things about difficult licensing is not that it necessarily stops people getting guns, because it really doesn't. But it instills the feeling when you get it that this is something to be taken seriously, something that is a responsibility that is not granted lightly. We see this in games like Gran Turismo, people like having cars locked away behind credits and winning races because then they mean something when you get them. I think if a gun is easy to walk into a store and buy then it's easy for people to treat it like a phone or a watch; just another toy.

Obviously this doesn't happen with gun people, they know what they're doing, but if we're honest most people who buy guns probably aren't really gun people. To gun people it's a hobby, a part of their life and something that they take seriously about doing well. To your average owner, I think it's more like a fire extinguisher; you buy it in case you need it but it's not something that you think about often.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

One year ago tonight some residents at Grenfell Tower went to sleep completely oblivious to the horror and injustice that would wake them.

 

[baldgye]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rses-home-secretary-sajid-javid-a8397921.html

...but immigration is bad! Bad bad bad!

/sarcasm

 

[Touring Mars]

One year ago tonight some residents at Grenfell Tower went to sleep completely oblivious to the horror and injustice that would wake them.

A very sad anniversary indeed, and there have been several very moving documentaries and news reports in recent days that have kept the Grenfell Tower tragedy firmly in the spotlight. It is impossible not to be moved by the testimony of the survivors, but it is almost as hard not to be extremely angry and shocked at some of the information that is coming to light as part of the various inquiries that are on-going. One of the saddest and hardest to deal with aspects of the tragedy is the scrutiny (and indeed criticism) of the Fire Brigade's now infamous "stay put' policy, which many people feel was the wrong advice - however there was no way for the Fire Brigade to have known in advance that Grenfell Tower was a rare case where that advice was possibly not the safest approach... but that said, many of the survivors who did flee tower were very lucky not to be killed, or were very fortunate that they were rescued before they died. Frankly, I wouldn't like to speculate as to what was the best advice - the fact was that it was an unprecedented incident, tragically, many people were going to die regardless of what advice they were given - not because the advice was bad, but because the fire itself spread so quickly and in such an unexpected way. With that in mind, the big question becomes why was Grenfell Tower clad in combustible material that wasn't even physically tested? The answer is (apparently) more complex than it might initially appear, but all that means is that everyone involved in the process of allowing that material to be used on that particular building must be held to account and must be able to explain their actions - and while most people in that process will not face punishment, it is already becoming quite clear that there are people who should certainly face manslaughter charges.

 

[Lizard]

A very sad anniversary indeed, and there have been several very moving documentaries and news reports in recent days that have kept the Grenfell Tower tragedy firmly in the spotlight. It is impossible not to be moved by the testimony of the survivors, but it is almost as hard not to be extremely angry and shocked at some of the information that is coming to light as part of the various inquiries that are on-going. One of the saddest and hardest to deal with aspects of the tragedy is the scrutiny (and indeed criticism) of the Fire Brigade's now infamous "stay put' policy, which many people feel was the wrong advice - however there was no way for the Fire Brigade to have known in advance that Grenfell Tower was a rare case where that advice was possibly not the safest approach... but that said, many of the survivors who did flee tower were very lucky not to be killed, or were very fortunate that they were rescued before they died. Frankly, I wouldn't like to speculate as to what was the best advice - the fact was that it was an unprecedented incident, tragically, many people were going to die regardless of what advice they were given - not because the advice was bad, but because the fire itself spread so quickly and in such an unexpected way. With that in mind, the big question becomes why was Grenfell Tower clad in combustible material that wasn't even physically tested? The answer is (apparently) more complex than it might initially appear, but all that means is that everyone involved in the process of allowing that material to be used on that particular building must be held to account and must be able to explain their actions - and while most people in that process will not face punishment, it is already becoming quite clear that there are people who should certainly face manslaughter charges.

Grenfell wasn't rare, it was unlucky to be the one that went up but there were loads of building with that cladding. My first year uni housing being one of them.
Although I guess you mean rare as in how quick the fire spread? Maybe it was rare, but surely they have dealt with all sorts of fires.

New topic. What does everyone think of the Scotland issue? It is getting stickier by the day, Hell some of my friends are saying they would be willing to take up arms against us, whilst I doubt that will happen it shows how much Scotland is drifting away more and more recently. Issue is May has time and time just thought she can ignore the Scottish parliament.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We all... love... INGURLAND!!!! INGURLAND etc. etc.

BBC

 

[Touring Mars]

Grenfell wasn't rare, it was unlucky to be the one that went up but there were loads of building with that cladding. My first year uni housing being one of them.

Although I guess you mean rare as in how quick the fire spread? Maybe it was rare, but surely they have dealt with all sorts of fires.

Perhaps rare is the wrong word - the fire behaved in a manner that the Fire Brigade completely did not expect because of the nature of the cladding, and hence made their guidance for that type of building irrelevant. The fact that the building also had the wrong kind of doors didn't help either, however the building also had inadequate fire escape routes meaning that the residents were in serious danger no matter what the advice given to them was. Onlookers and commentators at the time could see that the fire had spread up the entire side of the building very rapidly and thus called into question the 'stay put' policy, but the fact remains that by that point it had already become considerably more dangerous to attempt to flee than it was when the 'stay put' advice made more sense.

New topic. What does everyone think of the Scotland issue? It is getting stickier by the day, Hell some of my friends are saying they would be willing to take up arms against us, whilst I doubt that will happen it shows how much Scotland is drifting away more and more recently. Issue is May has time and time just thought she can ignore the Scottish parliament.

Take up arms against what? The UK government not listening to Scottish MPs?

It is a vexed question and I have mixed feelings about it - I think there is a deep level of mistrust from the SNP that the UK government will exploit Brexit to repatriate what ought to be devolved powers back to Westminster, when in reality it is either a backstop/default position. Conversely, the UK government are already pretty exasperated with the Scottish government (and the SNP in particular) about their efforts to frustrate the Brexit process.

One thing is clear, though - Theresa May and her government really need to work on their communication and diplomacy skills. I cannot understand why they continually appear to want to do things the hard way, rather than making life easier for all involved. In a post about both the Grenfell disaster and this issue, there is a clear common link - Theresa May has all the sensitivity and diplomatic skills of a plastic bag, but it doesn't help when the other side are continually spoiling for a fight and looking for any opportunity to further their own cause.

 

[Liquid]

There was a fire in a tower bloc in Lewisham today. Everyone is reportedly safe but some people are talking about the lack of fire alarms in the building, being oblivious to the situation.

 

[Lizard]

Take up arms against what? The UK government not listening to Scottish MPs?

The UK in the case that they have to assert their independence with more than a second vote. Like I said I find it hard to believe it would happen.

 

[TexRex]

One thing is clear, though - Theresa May and her government really need to work on their communication and diplomacy skills. I cannot understand why they continually appear to want to do things the hard way, rather than making life easier for all involved.

That...sounds awfully familiar.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is a vexed question and I have mixed feelings about it - I think there is a deep level of mistrust from the SNP that the UK government will exploit Brexit to repatriate what ought to be devolved powers back to Westminster, when in reality it is either a backstop/default position. Conversely, the UK government are already pretty exasperated with the Scottish government (and the SNP in particular) about their efforts to frustrate the Brexit process.

It's hard to know which is the proper line. As members of the UK Parliament should they honour the overall result of the UK Referendum or the result of the country that they represent? I have to say that if I was Scottish I'd represent my country over the Kingdom but then my reluctance to recognise the UK is well-documented here

 

[Liquid]

Whereas Wales is happy to cede power to London and accept being overruled at seemingly every opportunity.

 

[UKMikey]

We all... love... INGURLAND!!!! INGURLAND etc. etc.

BBC

It's a shame if he didn't keep the receipt.

 

[Johnnypenso]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rses-home-secretary-sajid-javid-a8397921.html

...but immigration is bad! Bad bad bad!

/sarcasm

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. Speaking very generally, true conservatives and liberals in most western countries don't have an issue with targeted and controlled immigration that fills actual employment needs in their country, the general objection is to the untrained and illegal hordes that fly under the radar.

 

[HenrySwanson]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rses-home-secretary-sajid-javid-a8397921.html

...but immigration is bad! Bad bad bad!

/sarcasm

It's not all bad, but it's not all good.

People keep saying that immigrants are a net positive to the economy but we need to be realistic about the infrastructure we have. You always hear that immigrants don't use health services as much as the elderly population, which is true, but what happens in 30-40 years when these immigrants are elderly??

I also think we shouldn't be fixing staff shortages in the NHS with foreign labour - instead we should be increasing the number being trained here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's not all bad, but it's not all good.

People keep saying that immigrants are a net positive to the economy but we need to be realistic about the infrastructure we have. You always hear that immigrants don't use health services as much as the elderly population, which is true, but what happens in 30-40 years when these immigrants are elderly??

I also think we shouldn't be fixing staff shortages in the NHS with foreign labour - instead we should be increasing the number being trained here.

You seem to be ignoring your own irony there - what happens if the immigrants whose work props up the health service want to use it? If they've paid their taxes I don't really care.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not all bad, but it's not all good.

People keep saying that immigrants are a net positive to the economy but we need to be realistic about the infrastructure we have. You always hear that immigrants don't use health services as much as the elderly population, which is true, but what happens in 30-40 years when these immigrants are elderly??

I also think we shouldn't be fixing staff shortages in the NHS with foreign labour - instead we should be increasing the number being trained here.

Training is a long term solution and the need is immediate. Further incentives for and availability of education and training in the necessary fields should be something they are making policy around as you move forward.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Whereas Wales is happy to cede power to London and accept being overruled at seemingly every opportunity.

I can't think of many instances that Wales had the means to make the decision, let alone be overruled.

The Lagoon, for all it's controversy, is a decision backed by Wales but abandoned at Westminster. The South Wales electrification has been indefinitely postponed and anything that does get approval appears entirely centered on Cardiff.

Grenfell wasn't rare, it was unlucky to be the one that went up but there were loads of building with that cladding. My first year uni housing being one of them.
Although I guess you mean rare as in how quick the fire spread? Maybe it was rare, but surely they have dealt with all sorts of fires.

It's not the material that is the only issue, the way it is installed is critical to how it performs in any fire test. I don't believe it was installed incorrectly at a wide variety of places but most have acted purely on the type of material.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Training is a long term solution and the need is immediate. Further incentives for and availability of education and training in the necessary fields should be something they are making policy around as you move forward.

They've known about this since 2012. Just how long does it take to train nurses or doctors. It's their own fault if they haven't trained enough people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They've known about this since 2012. Just how long does it take to train nurses or doctors. It's their own fault if they haven't trained enough people.

If application numbers are falling then there's more to it than simply employing enough staff. Where will they get them?

 

[Scaff]

It's not all bad, but it's not all good.

People keep saying that immigrants are a net positive to the economy but we need to be realistic about the infrastructure we have. You always hear that immigrants don't use health services as much as the elderly population, which is true, but what happens in 30-40 years when these immigrants are elderly??

They will have paid sufficiently into the system to be supported (as will any children they have had), we do after all tax them.

I also think we shouldn't be fixing staff shortages in the NHS with foreign labour - instead we should be increasing the number being trained here.

Given that its not the Matrix that has a significant ramp-up time.

 

[baldgye]

They've known about this since 2012. Just how long does it take to train nurses or doctors. It's their own fault if they haven't trained enough people.

What. Who’s known about it? Who’s fault is it?

Is it my fault I’m not a doctor/nurse and thus I’m not allowed healthcare because immigration is intrinsically awful (according to people who definitely do not have problems with race)?

 

[Tired Tyres]

What. Who’s known about it? Who’s fault is it?

Is it my fault I’m not a doctor/nurse and thus I’m not allowed healthcare because immigration is intrinsically awful (according to people who definitely do not have problems with race)?

On BBC news it was stated the the NHS has known about this shortfall since 2012. If all they have done is pure short term import fully trained personnel from other countries, who may need them themselves, instead of training personnel themselves. Who else could be at fault?

 

[UKMikey]

It's funny how those nursing applications started to fall after the government cut funding for student bursaries according to @TenEightyOne's report. It's tough to lay the blame solely on the National Health Service.

 

[baldgye]

On BBC news it was stated the the NHS has known about this shortfall since 2012. If all they have done is pure short term import fully trained personnel from other countries, who may need them themselves, instead of training personnel themselves. Who else could be at fault?

So, the NHS has know it’s got a staff shortfall. So it brought in people who could do the jobs needed... (of course working in the health system gives people good benefits)... what else was the NHS supposed to do?

Bring on thousands of apprentices, which they don’t have enough staff to train/educate and hope no one dies?

I don’t know who’s fault it could be... legal working immigrants in the NHS isn’t a problem, hasn’t ever been a problem and is only a problem now because rampant racism has been given a platform.
I’m also unsure of what other option they had... you can’t simply invest (assuming they could for arguments sake) in long term solutions... assuming it takes 5 years to train a doctor then any initiative they set up wouldn’t even be kicking in until now, again assuming it was aimed only at people leaving college...

The NHS staff shortages problem is huge, it’s not something that can simply be solved within 6 years. Because not only has there been a staff shortage for years and years, the population has continued to increase and the aging population has also increased... we are more and more dependant in the NHS as a population.

It’s no ‘ones’ fault, it’s a systematic issue. Like so many things, there is no one simple solution. But Brexit has helped give credibility this notion that immigration is bad, when it is, infact required. We depend(ed) on EU nationals to work as nurses in our NHS, directly after the result those applications almost stopped entirely.
We cannot function without them.

So to say that, oh well it’s X Y Z’s fault isn’t helpful, meaningful or a solution.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I’m also unsure of what other option they had... you can’t simply invest (assuming they could for arguments sake) in long term solutions...

IIRC correctly, in 2012 the Nursing issue was occurring because of budget cuts... which made it a tricky time for them to invest anyway...

The way I see it...

(They need to provide more money for training × They need to incentivise with better pay and conditions once trained) × They need MORE people to treat MORE people.

The supply of immigrant skills probably won't get better until we're out of the EU and people can see FACTS on what the implications are. That's 287 days away and it might not end in a rosey picture for those who could come and work here anyway.

All I can say is it's a damn good job the people of Britain voted for £350 million per extra to be given to the NHS!!! Oh.... wait....

 

[baldgye]

IIRC correctly, in 2012 the Nursing issue was occurring because of budget cuts... which made it a tricky time for them to invest anyway...

The way I see it...

(They need to provide more money for training × They need to incentivise with better pay and conditions once trained) × They need MORE people to treat MORE people.

The supply of immigrant skills probably won't get better until we're out of the EU and people can see FACTS on what the implications are. That's 287 days away and it might not end in a rosey picture for those who could come and work here anyway.

All I can say is it's a damn good job the people of Britain voted for £350 million per extra to be given to the NHS!!! Oh.... wait....

Nurses or people training to become nurses already get huge financial incentives, or at least they did when I was at uni in 2007/8...


I think people see the implications now... no £350m a day for the NHS, increasingly long waiting times... having to travel long distances for operations... I’m not sure we need our NHS to completely collapse before people ‘see’ it...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Nurses or people training to become nurses already get huge financial incentives, or at least they did when I was at uni in 2007/8...

No, they didn't. They didn't have to pay tuition fees.

In the meantime they had a longer teaching year (starting in September through to July) and did unpaid placements in the NHS throughout their degree including weekends and shift patterns.

And now they still have to do unpaid placements and they don't get tuition fees paid. Free staff!

I knew a house full of student nurses, they all worked (flexible) part time jobs alongside placements.

 

[baldgye]

No, they didn't. They didn't have to pay tuition fees.

In the meantime they had a longer teaching year (starting in September through to July) and did unpaid placements in the NHS throughout their degree including weekends and shift patterns.

And now they still have to do unpaid placements and they don't get tuition fees paid. Free staff!

I knew a house full of student nurses, they all worked (flexible) part time jobs alongside placements.

What are you saying, they did or didn’t have to pay tuition fees?

The two nurses I lived with didn’t. Not having to pay tuition fees is huge. I had to pay for everything and had no benefits what so ever. I’m still paying off my student loans and will be for a decent amount of time.

Getting placements is also a huge deal. I’m not sure however, why they felt the need to work, I didn’t when I was at Uni. It’s why Student loans exist... so you can focus on your studying...

Not only that, after you graduate, you have a job. When I left uni I wasn’t in that position. I had to go and look for work... it’s fun going out to the work place only to be turned down because you lack experience...