Britain - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

I suppose because this is a smaller country then the US generally we share sense of unity because we're all relatively close to one another (by American standards at least) and there is less social and cultural variety among us. America is so incredibly diverse that it's easy too look at it as several countries. It can still be mental here around Christmas, especially this year with the storm over the past couple of days. These days most shopping is done in big retail stores, especially for food. The kind of local corner shop idea is a bit more 1950s.

I can't necessarily say about our families being closer knit than American ones, as all I've seen of that part of America is through TV and Films. Though they, especially Christmas films, probably paint a more magical scene than is the case. I know some families which are probably a bit too close, with seemingly no boundaries, and others that hardly seem to care about one another. I guess it depends on your situation.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yup, I'd pretty much agree with the above. I'm not sure we're any more family-orientated than the U.S. really (from the people I personally know in the U.S, I'd say the opposite - far more happy family photos than most of my UK friends have appeared on Facebook over the past week) but we're crammed together a bit tighter.

To illustrate, probably 95 percent of my family still lives within a 100 mile circle of each other. The impression I do get from American friends is that more like 95 percent of family live outside a 100 mile circle of each other, so to have a big happy together Christmas you put in a lot more effort.

As a general populace, I'm not sure. Of my limited experience of America, I found people much more friendly there than they are in the UK. But that might be the accent factor.

 

[Keef]

Yup, I'd pretty much agree with the above. I'm not sure we're any more family-orientated than the U.S. really (from the people I personally know in the U.S, I'd say the opposite - far more happy family photos than most of my UK friends have appeared on Facebook over the past week) but we're crammed together a bit tighter.

To illustrate, probably 95 percent of my family still lives within a 100 mile circle of each other. The impression I do get from American friends is that more like 95 percent of family live outside a 100 mile circle of each other, so to have a big happy together Christmas you put in a lot more effort.

As a general populace, I'm not sure. Of my limited experience of America, I found people much more friendly there than they are in the UK. But that might be the accent factor.

I was watching some Top Gears the other day and I was paying attention to the jokes and comments. It seems that at least all British people are united by the same need to complain. They like complaining. They do it in a not-very-serious way and seem to laugh at what most Americans would see as a serious, no-nonsense issue of political correctness. I'm torn between the two attitudes - as an American I feel the need to not waste time and accomplish things in a serious manner but I really like to sit down and grumble and laugh at all the annoyances of life. That's probably one of the main differences I see between our two societies.

Also, pubs. An American bar I see as more of the place to go after a long crappy day at work to get away from the wife that gets on your nerves and just get drunk and waste time. A British pub I see as a place where everybody goes after a long crappy day at work to have fun and get drunk with friends. I'm not sure why exactly I have that stigma about local American bars but I do and that's why I won't go by myself. I can easily imagine a bunch of random British people going to the bar by themselves and leaving with a whole bunch of new friends.

 

[homeforsummer]

They like complaining.

Hell yes. The only problem is that a lot of people incessantly complain and they're serious about it, which gets boring very quickly. Whereas about 95% of the complaining I personally do is fairly light-hearted and usually because I find the situation funny to some degree.

Ultimately a lot of comedy (perhaps British comedy particularly) involves complaining about things, but that's what makes it so funny. Finding everything wonderful is very un-funny.

Also, pubs. An American bar I see as more of the place to go after a long crappy day at work to get away from the wife that gets on your nerves and just get drunk and waste time. A British pub I see as a place where everybody goes after a long crappy day at work to have fun and get drunk with friends. I'm not sure why exactly I have that stigma about local American bars but I do and that's why I won't go by myself. I can easily imagine a bunch of random British people going to the bar by themselves and leaving with a whole bunch of new friends.

Those are the impressions I get too, though I suspect the opposite is true in both places also.

Would make for an interesting social study.

 

[lbsf1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

I'm slightly stunned by the very contradictory statements that have come out of this. If he didn't have a gun when he was shot (They have concluded he had thrown it away before that point) then surely he wasn't a threat and thus the killing wasn't lawful.

 

[Mark T]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

I'm slightly stunned by the very contradictory statements that have come out of this. If he didn't have a gun when he was shot (They have concluded he had thrown it away before that point) then surely he wasn't a threat and thus the killing wasn't lawful.

The firearms officer said that he believed that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he exited the taxi. There were a few errors relating to the crime scene itself, evidence touched and the taxi removed from the scene before forensics had an opportunity to inspect it.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe the firearms officer intentionally shot Mark Duggan to kill him knowing he was unarmed or you believe that the firearms officer was acting on a split second judgement on the belief that Mark Duggan was holding a gun.

 

[MatskiMonk]

If the officer had wanted to execute him, knowing he was unarmed, why wouldn't he have just kicked the gun a few feet closer to the taxi, and claimed that he held the gun, then dropped it when he was shot... to be honest I don't know all that much about it... but since he's not supposed to have a gun in the first place, who cares? He was obviously involved in gangs and criminal activity, his family would have known this, they're angry that his own stupidity got him killed and they're using the opportunity to try and stick it to the police, because that's what those type of people do.

 

[Famine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

I'm slightly stunned by the very contradictory statements that have come out of this. If he didn't have a gun when he was shot (They have concluded he had thrown it away before that point) then surely he wasn't a threat and thus the killing wasn't lawful.

The firearms officers at the scene had evidence that suggested the gang-banging, drug-dealing scumpot known to be in possession of illegal firearms had illegal firearms on him.

The evidence gathered in the several months afterwards determined that he had been in possession of the illegal firearm but binned it out the window, unseen by the firearms officers.

They correctly thought he was a threat, but didn't know he wasn't an immediate deadly threat.

 

[KSaiyu]

My streets are safer.

 

[Liquid]

Now, I very sincerely do not want to open a can of worms but it is quite interesting to note how the first shot a British police offer fires could also be the last shot of his career.

 

[DK]

After watching "Benefits Street", I'm willing to bet 10 Ugandan dollars that the Fail and the Waily Express are going to be screaming from the top of their lungs tomorrow, with the Express launching a "Crusade" to revive workhouses.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Enough about the sad news for now. The Daily Telegraph is reporting on a couple in Britain who recently welcomed their fourth arrival into the world this last Sunday. The freak out bit? The birth date, 1/12, falls on the birthdays of the couple's other three children. The odds of that happening were 133,225 to one. The eldest child was born late, the couple welcomed twin girls via C-section early, and the new arrival was born a bit late.

The couple better circle January 12, 2030 on their calenders. That is when the eldest will turn 21, the twin girls 18, and the new born 16.

God help us.

 

[BobK]

The odds are not 133,225 to 1, something like this is much more likely. Especially given the twins via C-section whose birth date is entirely arbitrary.

Note that 133,225 is 365 times 365.

 

[Mark T]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/20/maajid-nawaz-cartoon_n_4631609.html

The Muslim director of a think-tank credited with Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL has received "credible" death threats after tweeting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed.

British Muslim campaigners have now told HuffPost UK they fear a split in the community over Maajid Nawaz's Quilliam Foundation's endorsement of the ex-EDL leader's genuine 'conversion' from anti-Islam activity.

The row has spiralled since last week when Nawaz tweeted a cartoon from 'Jesus and Mo' series, with the caption: "This is not offensive & I'm sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it.”

www.jesusandmo.net

Here we go again.

 

[Liquid]

God may be greater than to be threatened by it, but some of his inferior creations are not.

 

[Liquid]

Labour peer 'Baroness' Morgan says appointments should be made on merit.

Oh the irony.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25997102

 

[homeforsummer]

Minor rant: The floods in the south of England at the moment.

News report cuts to a discussion in the Commons as Cameron pledges more money to help those affected and help repair flood defenses.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I absolutely despise the part of political interaction where potentially useful ideas are dismissed by the opposing party - in this case Labour - for nothing more than bipartisan rivalry. It is absolutely not productive to have that snivelling prick Milliband saying the government "isn't doing enough" to help flood victims and sitting back down with a smug look on his lisping Plasticine face.

I'm no fan of Con-Lib either but if Labour has a useful suggestion on how to stop tens of thousands of people spending the next few months under water then damn well suggest something. Don't use the public's misfortune as political ammo for whenever the next election comes around, use the public's misfortune as a frigging incentive to do your jobs as politicians and represent the people you've been elected to represent.

Am I being hopelessly naïve here and missing something important about the situation, or is this just good old-fashioned blatant bitch-fighting rather than doing something useful?

 

[axletramp]

I don't think it's naive, but I do think that sometimes it's easy to fall into the trap thinking that politicians are actually there because they want to do good for the people and run the country fairly and in a reasonable manner.

 

[Callum B]

Something less serious, I'm curious about neknominations. Has this ridiculous new 'trend' exclusive to us, or has it crossed the pacific yet?

 

[PeterJB]

It's been a week and it's already dwindling because people have started dying. And doing things unrelated to alcohol consumption.

 

[Famine]

Apparently we've not got much else to do at the moment but ban people from partaking in a legal activity on their own property.

 

[homeforsummer]

Apparently we've not got much else to do at the moment but ban people from partaking in a legal activity on their own property.

Indeed. If we banned everything that was stupid then logically we'd have to ban politicians too.

 

[DK]

On the other hand, it could ban the Daily Fail and the Waily Express. 💡

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently we've not got much else to do at the moment but ban people from partaking in a legal activity on their own property.

Smoking is legal, albeit pretty stupid, but adults have the choice whether to partake - but needlessly subjecting children to second-hand smoke is a different matter. Passive smoking is by no means the only way ignorant or neglectful parents can inflict harm on their children, but it is something that is relatively easy to avoid. It's not surprising that the vote passed so easily. When it comes to protecting the civil liberties of smokers versus children's health, there was only ever going to be one winner.

 

[Famine]

Then why is it permitted in the home? Why is it instead banned in the most easily ventilated place in the universe?

And when did the government become so good at parenting that it got to take over the job?

 

[acjy1985]

Then why is it permitted in the home? Why is it instead banned in the most easily ventilated place in the universe?

And when did the government become so good at parenting that it got to take over the job?

I agree. If you want to kill your kids in your car then that is fine. I'd much rather they banned smoking outside. Particularly in high streets like they have done with alcohol in most towns.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think if someone could make a machine that demonstrates how repugnant the smell inside a car that is regularly smoked in actually is, fewer people would take up smoking in the first place! All those smoke absorbing fabrics in such a small space, and vinyl plastics that the vile nicotine staining smegtar gets baked on to on hot days. I vomitted in a car once, never did manage to get it all cleaned out of the seat mechanism - I don't remember that being as bad (even on hot days) as my current car (that previously belonged to a smoker).

But, I suppose it is an infringement on rights - what's next, No Ginsters Pasties in the car.. It's an outrage!

 

[Famine]

They'll still have the stench - it's only banned to smoke in your own car when children are present.

 

[Tesla]

I agree. If you want to kill your kids in your car then that is fine. I'd much rather they banned smoking outside. Particularly in high streets like they have done with alcohol in most towns.

Why? Most of them time, you'll spend a few seconds smelling their smoke as you walk past them.

 

[axletramp]

I think I'd rather have people smoking outside on the street than in confined spaces where children, who have no choice in the matter, are present.

A simple 'just ban it' approach is difficult because where does it stop. Bad diets and alcohol are also killers that are drain on the health service, so do we ban them too?