You have several good points, put in general it worries me. I believe this to be more a cultural thing, but that's the way it goes.
Firstly, when guns are potential death come into the equation I believe that everyone should know EXACTLY what the law is, otherwise someone is going to end up on a murder charge.
You mention rape, alwats a controvertial topic. here's an example. I am having an argument with my girlfriend, she starts hitting me, I raise an arm in defence and she falls. Not a good situation (especially as I shouldn't have raised an arm, but that is another issue). Or perhaps she is hysterical and I am trying to calm her down. Or perhaps she is mentally ill and isn't entirely in control of what she does.
Now what happens if she shouts out claims that I am attempting to rape her? (Note, before anyone goes crazy, I am not saying that all women do this).
To be honest, I do not want half the street pulling a gun on me.
Look at it as the difference between the police arresting someone and a citizen performing an arrest. In the UK the police can arrest upon suspicion but have to release after a certain amoutn of time if no charge is to made. A citizen can arrest if that citizen knows for a fact that a crime has taken place.
People from the US talk about their civil liberties and how it is their right to be able defend themself. I say it is my right to be able to walk down the street without the fear that a gun is going to be pulled on me. Kennesaw County sounds like my idea of Hell. I don't care if the crim ehas been reduced. I don't want to live there (and will not live there) as I would live in constant fear. Any hothead (or even undiagnosed mentally ill person - you don't really think that all mentally ill people are registered do you?) around me, if he is the head of a household, is legally required to own a weapon that can kill me.
I don't see that as "having a weapon to defend their home". I see it as "having a weapon that can be used to kill me". I believe I have a right to not spend my life thinking that way.
In my previous post, I was just trying to make the connection between lack of visible police and rising crime. I disagree with your comment that "having more police on the street acts as a deterrent to some". I would say it would be a deterrent to a lot more than some. What we have lost it Britain is the "local bobby". Your local policeman that everyone knew the name of. They just don't have a presence and without a presence the criminals are laughing. My example of Kenilworth was not to say they could have prevented anything, it was an illustration of the disastrous fall in Police numbers in the UK.
This is why the Labour government are trying desperately to raise police levels. But they may have left it far too late and the Tories are loving reminding them about it.
Here's soemthing for you to think about. The first time I ever saw a privately owned gun was in Atlanta (I work for the Swedish arm of a company based there). I had asked for a receipt after a taxi ride. The driver opened the glove compartment to get the book and he had a gun there. I was scared stiff. I froze. Now, was that my culture's fault for not preparing me for the sight of a gun? Was it the American culture's fault for requiring that the driver has a gun for protection. Or was it just two diverse cultures with very different backgrounds clashing, to such an extent that we shouldn't really compare?
Now we're getting into the discussion of "what is a UKian". I see a "UKian" as being a citizen of the UK. If that is not the view of other people then I apologise.
People became British citizens on 1 January 1983 if they were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on 31 December 1982 and had the right of abode in the United Kingdom on that date.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and some other islands that someone else posted details of.
Thus, if you were a UK Citizen living in the UK on 1 January 1983 you became a British Citizen.
I find it interesting that you equate Britain's rising crime rate a gun control problem. You seem to all-to-easily associate crime with lack of privately owned guns.
If you speak to a Brit you will find that the rising level of crime has tied in quite astoundingly with the decline in amount of police officers. Back in the good old days being a policeman was an attractive job prospect. The pay was very good and there were excellent benefits. Unfortunately it hasn't kept up with the times and being a police officer is nowhere near as attractive as it used to be. Hence falling police numbers, hence rising crime.
To give you an example. In my Parents' hometown (Kenilworth, Warwickshire) the local police station no longer has a policeman in the evening. So, if anything happens in Kenilworth the Police have to be called from nearby Leamington, about 20 mins away. I think just about any crime can be done in 20 minutes. Compare this to five years ago, where an office could be called from the local station 2 minutes away.
This is why crime is rising in Britain. Anyway, do you really think we should trust our neighbours, with the common man's dubious knowledge of the law, with crime prevention or should we trust those who are trained in the very letter of the law? That, IMHO, is the difference between a Brit and someone from the US. In Britain we see the Police as those who uphold the law. IMHO those from the US want the ability to take the law into their owns hands, which is all well and good as long as everyone knows EXACTLY what the law is.
"Citizenship and national status: British Citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdon. No right of abode in the United Kingdon derives from the status, as British Nationals, of British Dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and British subjects."
So it even goes out of the way to say I am not a British Subject but a British citizen.
Seeing people on Slashdot talk about Britain is embarressing in the same way as seeing people on Slashdot talk about anything law related. It becomes painfully apparent how little most people know or understand.
Talking of Ads, does anyone know where I can find an MPEG of the Blackcurrant Tango "You're an exchange student, aren't you Sebastian" ad from a coupel of years ago (the on ethat finished on the white cliffs of Dover with the harriers and the boxing ring)? That has to be, hands down, my favourite ad ever and I can't find it for the life of me.
Can we now have the bit where all us Brits are "British Subjects" even though my passport clearly says:
Nationality/Nationalité(3)
British Citizen
and
Citizenship and National Status British Ciizens have the rite of abode in the United Kingdom. No right of abode in the United Kingdom derives from the status, as British Nationals, of British Dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and British subjects.
That ones always my favourite. Actually, maybe I should note this down for future use when someone from the US calls me a British Subject. My passport states I am a citizen and goes out of its way to state that I am not a subject.
Britain. If you're ill you get paid. If it goes on for more than IIRC 4 days you are required to provide a doctor's note. Taking too many single days or suchlike (thus avoiding the doctor's note) can result in disciplinary procedures.
Basically, if you are genuinely ill you don't lose money.
Cost of living is less? I'm sorry but that is total dreamland, especially when you consider that Sweden has one of the highest costs of living in Europe.
You will get hit by tax badly. VAT (sales tax) is what really surprises me. It is on everything, literally (I am a Brit and therefore used to no VAT on food, books and suchlike...). On most non-food things you will have a rate of 25%. My income tax in Sweden is 33.8%. That is the base tax area for where I live (Bromma, West Stockholm). I do not earn enough to be in a higher tax bracket.
I hope you are not a drinker as Sweden has some of the most blatantly ridiculous alcohol prices in Europe. If you want to drink at home then you will have to buy alcohol from System Bolaget, a state owned liquor store chain. There are nowhere near enough of them, they close really early during the week (usually 7, maybe 8 on Thursdays and Fridays) and only open (if you're local one opens at all) for a maximum of five hours on a Saturday (10-3). There are no Sunday openings.
There are more job opportunities than you can shake a stick at. Just about every IT company has an office in Kista, a northern subhurb of Stockholm. They like to think of the area as "Europe's Silicon Valley". The local shopping mall even has a Sweden/Silicon Valley clock. If all else fails, try to work for Ericsson. Every Swede appears to have at some point. They probably throw you out of the country if you haven't worked for them within 3 years. *grin* Telia, the recently privatised Telecoms monopoly, is also a good bet.
Just about everyone below 30 speaks incredible English. This however, can be a problem if you are trying to learn the language. Swedes can hear my English accent from a mile off, so even if I start a conversation in Swedish they will always reply in English. This sometimes gets to me and I end up in the bizarre situation of a Brit speakign Swedish to a Swede speaking English.
If you are a happy tax payer you can always got to the recently privatised (a bit of a theme here) SFI, who give you Swedish courses for free. I have no wbeen learning for 9 months and all books and two 2.5 hour lessons a week after work are free.
Really bizarre thing: I hope you don't tend to take sick days. In Sweden you will not be paid for the first sick day and will only receive 80% of your pay for the second. If you do take a day off you make damn sure you get better before you go back to work. If you take a day off, then come back for a day and then take another day off you will lose two days pay. Well, unless you are creative with your timesheet (which everyone in my office is). Either that or just claim it as on eof your holidays - and seeing as you get a ridiculous 28 days holiday plus IIRC 9 "red days" plus, if you are lucky, a half day before the "red day". It is no joke that some companies practically close down for a month or two over the summer. With so many holidays many people take a MONTH off.
Hmm. Went on a bit there. I know some things there sounded a bit negative. Sorry, it isn't a diss at Sweden. I love the country and am very glad I moved here. Hope I was som ehelp. Maybe I should go to bed now.
Because they need some other way of making money than being "franchises" that are practically tax exempt and tend to move city at the drop of a hat if someone offers more cash?
Yes I would be prepared to admit it has been a failure, but I don't see that happening.
IMHO violent crime and massacres are different beasts. Violent crime is performed by serial criminals. To get guns in Britain you have to go out of your way (and I mean REALLY out of your way) to get hold of them. I'm not denying that you can, it just isn't anywhere near as easy as walking into a shop.
On the other hand, massacres are generally performed by those with no previous record of violent crime. They lost the plot and went mad with the guns that were available to him/her. Look at that guy who worked at the.com in the US. He wasn't roaming the streets knocking people off or serially robbing liquor stores with guns. No, he just had guns and when his tax problems arose something clicked in his mind. When that click happened he took the guns that were available to him and murdered.
The laws that came into effect after Dunblane will not stop normal, day to day criminals. It does, however, stop massacres like Dunblane. And seeing that one more Dunblane could double the amount of deaths by guns in the UK, IMHO our gun control laws are justified.
No restaurants, but you will find plenty of British pubs (and I do NOT mean Irish pubs) which always serve British cuisine.
They always manage to get something wrong though. In Sweden (where I live) all "British" pubs have far too many chairs and tables. My favourite was the "authentic British Pub" in CNN centre, Atlanta, which was so authentic you had to wait to be seated at the entrance.
Well, we know of the "other" meaning of it, but much like "ass" we don't tend to use it. We've got enough words of our own:o)
Anyway, the humour of the name has been well noted since it was released... which was some time ago. Good to see the delay with American movies coming to Europe also works the other way round.
No, sir. You are mistaken. There were only Germans, French Civilians and God's true people, the warriors of the United States of America, in France during the Second World War.
I know this because "Saving Private Ryan" told me it.
I refer the honourable gentleman to this site (which is not based in the UK) for a brief description of the ins and out of the British Constitution. It evens includes examples of written documents that relate to what you would find in the written constitution of other countries.
I will, however, also post a quote from the site (for those who cannot be bothered to click on the link).
Great Britain is often said to stand alone in having an unwritten constitution. This assessment is both true and false. It is true to the extent that there is no single document, standing in a position of superiority to ordinary statute law, that claims to embody the entirety of the British constitution. The most essential elements of the British constitution exist by unwritten convention. But this assessment is false in two respects. First, it can be argued that every country has an unwritten constitution which develops around the written document, often changing or even nullifying its provisions. Second, there are indeed written statutes even in Britain which can be seen as possessing a certain constitutional status because their subject matter is constitutional.
Let's not forget that every single order from them comes with a handwritten "thanks" note. Checking my box here, in which I received my Buffy 4.1 and Angel 1.1 box sets, my last thanks was from "Terry".
Little touches like that humanise things. They really make a difference.
Maybe I'm missing something, but are you really complaining about it taking 35 mins by BUS to get home?
Mate, you really wouldn't have liked the 50 min walk I did to and from Birmingham University (UK) down the Bristol Road to Northfield every day for three years.
Thinking about it - almost 2 miles, 35 mins. Hell, WALK. For the love of God, get some exercise.
The problem wasn't that a statue of Winston Churchill was defaced, it was a memorial to the dead of two world wars that was defaced. No matter which way you look at it, that is despicable. Ronald going head first through a window pales in comparison.
You've been watching "Saving Private Ryan" again, haven't you? How many times do I have to tell you, if you want to learn something about history, don't try to do it from a Hollywood movie.....
Slashdot Mirror
You have several good points, put in general it worries me. I believe this to be more a cultural thing, but that's the way it goes.
Firstly, when guns are potential death come into the equation I believe that everyone should know EXACTLY what the law is, otherwise someone is going to end up on a murder charge.
You mention rape, alwats a controvertial topic. here's an example. I am having an argument with my girlfriend, she starts hitting me, I raise an arm in defence and she falls. Not a good situation (especially as I shouldn't have raised an arm, but that is another issue). Or perhaps she is hysterical and I am trying to calm her down. Or perhaps she is mentally ill and isn't entirely in control of what she does.
Now what happens if she shouts out claims that I am attempting to rape her? (Note, before anyone goes crazy, I am not saying that all women do this).
To be honest, I do not want half the street pulling a gun on me.
Look at it as the difference between the police arresting someone and a citizen performing an arrest. In the UK the police can arrest upon suspicion but have to release after a certain amoutn of time if no charge is to made. A citizen can arrest if that citizen knows for a fact that a crime has taken place.
People from the US talk about their civil liberties and how it is their right to be able defend themself. I say it is my right to be able to walk down the street without the fear that a gun is going to be pulled on me. Kennesaw County sounds like my idea of Hell. I don't care if the crim ehas been reduced. I don't want to live there (and will not live there) as I would live in constant fear. Any hothead (or even undiagnosed mentally ill person - you don't really think that all mentally ill people are registered do you?) around me, if he is the head of a household, is legally required to own a weapon that can kill me.
I don't see that as "having a weapon to defend their home". I see it as "having a weapon that can be used to kill me". I believe I have a right to not spend my life thinking that way.
In my previous post, I was just trying to make the connection between lack of visible police and rising crime. I disagree with your comment that "having more police on the street acts as a deterrent to some". I would say it would be a deterrent to a lot more than some. What we have lost it Britain is the "local bobby". Your local policeman that everyone knew the name of. They just don't have a presence and without a presence the criminals are laughing. My example of Kenilworth was not to say they could have prevented anything, it was an illustration of the disastrous fall in Police numbers in the UK.
This is why the Labour government are trying desperately to raise police levels. But they may have left it far too late and the Tories are loving reminding them about it.
Here's soemthing for you to think about. The first time I ever saw a privately owned gun was in Atlanta (I work for the Swedish arm of a company based there). I had asked for a receipt after a taxi ride. The driver opened the glove compartment to get the book and he had a gun there. I was scared stiff. I froze. Now, was that my culture's fault for not preparing me for the sight of a gun? Was it the American culture's fault for requiring that the driver has a gun for protection. Or was it just two diverse cultures with very different backgrounds clashing, to such an extent that we shouldn't really compare?
Now we're getting into the discussion of "what is a UKian". I see a "UKian" as being a citizen of the UK. If that is not the view of other people then I apologise.
I refer you to the United Kingdom Passport Authority.
I quote.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and some other islands that someone else posted details of.
Thus, if you were a UK Citizen living in the UK on 1 January 1983 you became a British Citizen.
Can someone now tell me where I was being racist?
What's a UKian?
If you're from the UK then you are British, your passport says so.
I find it interesting that you equate Britain's rising crime rate a gun control problem. You seem to all-to-easily associate crime with lack of privately owned guns.
If you speak to a Brit you will find that the rising level of crime has tied in quite astoundingly with the decline in amount of police officers. Back in the good old days being a policeman was an attractive job prospect. The pay was very good and there were excellent benefits. Unfortunately it hasn't kept up with the times and being a police officer is nowhere near as attractive as it used to be. Hence falling police numbers, hence rising crime.
To give you an example. In my Parents' hometown (Kenilworth, Warwickshire) the local police station no longer has a policeman in the evening. So, if anything happens in Kenilworth the Police have to be called from nearby Leamington, about 20 mins away. I think just about any crime can be done in 20 minutes. Compare this to five years ago, where an office could be called from the local station 2 minutes away.
This is why crime is rising in Britain. Anyway, do you really think we should trust our neighbours, with the common man's dubious knowledge of the law, with crime prevention or should we trust those who are trained in the very letter of the law? That, IMHO, is the difference between a Brit and someone from the US. In Britain we see the Police as those who uphold the law. IMHO those from the US want the ability to take the law into their owns hands, which is all well and good as long as everyone knows EXACTLY what the law is.
From my British passport:
"Nationality/Nationalité BRITISH CITIZEN"
"Citizenship and national status: British Citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdon. No right of abode in the United Kingdon derives from the status, as British Nationals, of British Dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and British subjects."
So it even goes out of the way to say I am not a British Subject but a British citizen.
Seeing people on Slashdot talk about Britain is embarressing in the same way as seeing people on Slashdot talk about anything law related. It becomes painfully apparent how little most people know or understand.
Talking of Ads, does anyone know where I can find an MPEG of the Blackcurrant Tango "You're an exchange student, aren't you Sebastian" ad from a coupel of years ago (the on ethat finished on the white cliffs of Dover with the harriers and the boxing ring)? That has to be, hands down, my favourite ad ever and I can't find it for the life of me.
Is it just me or does the popularity of basketball, a sport where not scoring is rarer than scoring, sum up the US as a whole?
and
That ones always my favourite. Actually, maybe I should note this down for future use when someone from the US calls me a British Subject. My passport states I am a citizen and goes out of its way to state that I am not a subject.
Britain. If you're ill you get paid. If it goes on for more than IIRC 4 days you are required to provide a doctor's note. Taking too many single days or suchlike (thus avoiding the doctor's note) can result in disciplinary procedures.
Basically, if you are genuinely ill you don't lose money.
OK. Cheers. At least I now know it is not *quite* as bad as I thought.
Thing is, I still go to work when sick because I am 100% against the principle.
Being in work when sick is neither good for me or my company.
Cost of living is less? I'm sorry but that is total dreamland, especially when you consider that Sweden has one of the highest costs of living in Europe.
...). On most non-food things you will have a rate of 25%. My income tax in Sweden is 33.8%. That is the base tax area for where I live (Bromma, West Stockholm). I do not earn enough to be in a higher tax bracket.
You will get hit by tax badly. VAT (sales tax) is what really surprises me. It is on everything, literally (I am a Brit and therefore used to no VAT on food, books and suchlike
I hope you are not a drinker as Sweden has some of the most blatantly ridiculous alcohol prices in Europe. If you want to drink at home then you will have to buy alcohol from System Bolaget, a state owned liquor store chain. There are nowhere near enough of them, they close really early during the week (usually 7, maybe 8 on Thursdays and Fridays) and only open (if you're local one opens at all) for a maximum of five hours on a Saturday (10-3). There are no Sunday openings.
There are more job opportunities than you can shake a stick at. Just about every IT company has an office in Kista, a northern subhurb of Stockholm. They like to think of the area as "Europe's Silicon Valley". The local shopping mall even has a Sweden/Silicon Valley clock. If all else fails, try to work for Ericsson. Every Swede appears to have at some point. They probably throw you out of the country if you haven't worked for them within 3 years. *grin* Telia, the recently privatised Telecoms monopoly, is also a good bet.
Just about everyone below 30 speaks incredible English. This however, can be a problem if you are trying to learn the language. Swedes can hear my English accent from a mile off, so even if I start a conversation in Swedish they will always reply in English. This sometimes gets to me and I end up in the bizarre situation of a Brit speakign Swedish to a Swede speaking English.
If you are a happy tax payer you can always got to the recently privatised (a bit of a theme here) SFI, who give you Swedish courses for free. I have no wbeen learning for 9 months and all books and two 2.5 hour lessons a week after work are free.
Really bizarre thing: I hope you don't tend to take sick days. In Sweden you will not be paid for the first sick day and will only receive 80% of your pay for the second. If you do take a day off you make damn sure you get better before you go back to work. If you take a day off, then come back for a day and then take another day off you will lose two days pay. Well, unless you are creative with your timesheet (which everyone in my office is). Either that or just claim it as on eof your holidays - and seeing as you get a ridiculous 28 days holiday plus IIRC 9 "red days" plus, if you are lucky, a half day before the "red day". It is no joke that some companies practically close down for a month or two over the summer. With so many holidays many people take a MONTH off.
Hmm. Went on a bit there. I know some things there sounded a bit negative. Sorry, it isn't a diss at Sweden. I love the country and am very glad I moved here. Hope I was som ehelp. Maybe I should go to bed now.
Because they need some other way of making money than being "franchises" that are practically tax exempt and tend to move city at the drop of a hat if someone offers more cash?
Yes I would be prepared to admit it has been a failure, but I don't see that happening.
.com in the US. He wasn't roaming the streets knocking people off or serially robbing liquor stores with guns. No, he just had guns and when his tax problems arose something clicked in his mind. When that click happened he took the guns that were available to him and murdered.
IMHO violent crime and massacres are different beasts. Violent crime is performed by serial criminals. To get guns in Britain you have to go out of your way (and I mean REALLY out of your way) to get hold of them. I'm not denying that you can, it just isn't anywhere near as easy as walking into a shop.
On the other hand, massacres are generally performed by those with no previous record of violent crime. They lost the plot and went mad with the guns that were available to him/her. Look at that guy who worked at the
The laws that came into effect after Dunblane will not stop normal, day to day criminals. It does, however, stop massacres like Dunblane. And seeing that one more Dunblane could double the amount of deaths by guns in the UK, IMHO our gun control laws are justified.
No restaurants, but you will find plenty of British pubs (and I do NOT mean Irish pubs) which always serve British cuisine.
They always manage to get something wrong though. In Sweden (where I live) all "British" pubs have far too many chairs and tables. My favourite was the "authentic British Pub" in CNN centre, Atlanta, which was so authentic you had to wait to be seated at the entrance.
Um .... nice idea but the laws against personal firearms were brought in BECAUSE of the Dunblane massacre.
It may be worth pointing out that since bringing in the laws we have not had another massacre.
Well, we know of the "other" meaning of it, but much like "ass" we don't tend to use it. We've got enough words of our own :o)
... which was some time ago. Good to see the delay with American movies coming to Europe also works the other way round.
Anyway, the humour of the name has been well noted since it was released
No, sir. You are mistaken. There were only Germans, French Civilians and God's true people, the warriors of the United States of America, in France during the Second World War.
I know this because "Saving Private Ryan" told me it.
I refer the honourable gentleman to this site (which is not based in the UK) for a brief description of the ins and out of the British Constitution. It evens includes examples of written documents that relate to what you would find in the written constitution of other countries.
I will, however, also post a quote from the site (for those who cannot be bothered to click on the link).
Er ... Norway?
Price of beer cut in half?
Um?
Let's not forget that every single order from them comes with a handwritten "thanks" note. Checking my box here, in which I received my Buffy 4.1 and Angel 1.1 box sets, my last thanks was from "Terry".
Little touches like that humanise things. They really make a difference.
Maybe I'm missing something, but are you really complaining about it taking 35 mins by BUS to get home?
Mate, you really wouldn't have liked the 50 min walk I did to and from Birmingham University (UK) down the Bristol Road to Northfield every day for three years.
Thinking about it - almost 2 miles, 35 mins. Hell, WALK. For the love of God, get some exercise.
Channel Four, mate, not the BBC. You may find it hard to believe but we have commercial television in the UK as well.
The problem wasn't that a statue of Winston Churchill was defaced, it was a memorial to the dead of two world wars that was defaced. No matter which way you look at it, that is despicable. Ronald going head first through a window pales in comparison.
You've been watching "Saving Private Ryan" again, haven't you? How many times do I have to tell you, if you want to learn something about history, don't try to do it from a Hollywood movie .....