Britain - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

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.

Are you familiar with how government works? 6 years is barely enough time to officially recognize that a problem exists, it'll take another half decade to filter through a pile of studies, committiees, town hall meetings, budget proposals and various other red tape before a decision is made, at which time another party will be running the government and decide it was all bollocks and start over. Targeted immigration is easy and a quick fix and if it works they'll just keep doing it and likely nothing else.

 

[Lizard]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427


Good god. How the 🤬 can you block that and still feel you are a moral person?

 

[baldgye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427


Good god. How the 🤬 can you block that and still feel you are a moral person?

If my understanding is right, it can now be put forward for discussion and a vote. So it could/should still go through.

 

[UKMikey]

Gina Martin plans to meet Sir Christopher to discuss the bill further

I would suggest she wears a pair of trousers to the discussion just to send a message about what she doubtless thinks of him.

 

[TenEightyOne]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427


Good god. How the 🤬 can you block that and still feel you are a moral person?

To cries of 'Shame!'. Shame indeed. His voting/blocking record is quite heinous, I hope his constituency are proud of such a member.

I would suggest she wears a pair of trousers to the discussion just to send a message about what she doubtless thinks of him.

She should point her phone at his groin and pretend to take some pictures. Maybe not, but you get the idea

 

[MatskiMonk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427


Good god. How the 🤬 can you block that and still feel you are a moral person?

I'm not against this bill, but fundamentally this is an oddly specific restriction on public photography.

 

[UKMikey]

His voting/blocking record is quite heinous, I hope his constituency are proud of such a member.

Blimey - you're not kidding.

Hopefully his blocking of the upskirt issue will give his apparent indecency some much needed exposure.

I'm not against this bill, but fundamentally this is an oddly specific restriction on public photography.

Which other instances of public photography would you suggest it also covered while still protecting the victims of this offence? Alternatively, which innocent public photographers would be harmed by passing this bill?

 

[TexRex]

I hope his constituency are proud of such a member.

You said "member" in a discussion about legislation to prohibit unwanted candid photography of genitalia.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Which other instances of public photography would you suggest it also covered while still protecting the victims of this offence? Alternatively, which innocent public photographers would be harmed by passing this bill?

If the subject, situation and intention is in no other way illegal, what's the difference between this type of thing and photography of any other part of the anatomy for personal enjoyment without the subjects consent? Between privacy laws, public decency laws, property laws, laws relating to extortion, rights laws pertaining to use of photographs, laws relating to consent and those surrounding potential physical distress... what else isn't being addressed? And if the sentiment is designed target people taking photos of a sexual nature without the subjects consent, it seems to be drawing the line at quite a specific scenario, that's all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If the subject, situation and intention is in no other way illegal, what's the difference between this type of thing and photography of any other part of the anatomy for personal enjoyment without the subjects consent? Between privacy laws, public decency laws, property laws, laws relating to extortion, rights laws pertaining to use of photographs, laws relating to consent and those surrounding potential physical distress... what else isn't being addressed? And if the sentiment is designed target people taking photos of a sexual nature without the subjects consent, it seems to be drawing the line at quite a specific scenario, that's all.

Laws don't prohibit finding certain things sexual (like women in big hats, as a random example) but they do normally protect the idea that one's more intimate parts are not to be photographed without one's knowledge. An obvious exception to that would be if somebody was topless or nude (or bottomless I guess) at an occasion/location where photography wasn't forbidden.

With those exceptions in mind it seems perfectly reasonable to think that covertly using a camera device to take a photograph of somebody's genitals or underwear is something that should be forbidden and from which people should have protection in law. I quite accept that in the future there will be cases where it is judged that a crime hasn't been committed but without this law the police have no reasonable mechanism to take such an action to judgement.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Laws don't prohibit finding certain things sexual (like women in big hats, as a random example) but they do normally protect the idea that one's more intimate parts are not to be photographed without one's knowledge. An obvious exception to that would be if somebody was topless or nude (or bottomless I guess) at an occasion/location where photography wasn't forbidden.

With those exceptions in mind it seems perfectly reasonable to think that covertly using a camera device to take a photograph of somebody's genitals or underwear is something that should be forbidden and from which people should have protection in law. I quite accept that in the future there will be cases where it is judged that a crime hasn't been committed but without this law the police have no reasonable mechanism to take such an action to judgement.

So at the moment it's prosecuted under the less specific Outraging public decency act?

 

[TexRex]

Spoiler

Hnnnng...

 

[HenrySwanson]

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.

Then they use it, no problem. But you're basing your argument on a fallacy - are you saying that a majority of the 244'000 net influx are propping up the health service?

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.

Exactly what they should be doing. The stupid times of just going to EU countries and grabbing nurses is (thankfully) more regulated now.

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

But the problem is infrastructure.

Yours is an argument said by almost everyone in favour of keeping migration as it stands now but when exactly do you put a cap on it? What would be your target net migration and when would you think this should be achieved? Bear in mind we're talking only about health service provision at the moment. We haven't even mentioned housing, policing, school places etc.

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

Which is why you create more places while limiting migration in the mean time.

 

[baldgye]

So at the moment it's prosecuted under the less specific Outraging public decency act?

I don’t think it’s being prosecuted at all. I’ve seen many photographs (please note this isn’t something I seek out, but worked in a newsagents for a time) of women getting in and out of cars without underwear published in newspapers of varying descriptions...

Yours is an argument said by almost everyone in favour of keeping migration as it stands now but when exactly do you put a cap on it?

probably when the government decides? We can cap EU and outside of EU migration...

 

[HenrySwanson]

probably when the government decides? We can cap EU and outside of EU migration...

Which should be when? We've had that ability for years but it hasn't been enforced.

What I want to know is when people who support the current status quo want a restriction, and to what number

 

[baldgye]

Which should be when? We've had that ability for years but it hasn't been enforced.

What I want to know is when people who support the current status quo want a restriction, and to what number

What hasn’t been enforced?
We have strict controls on immigration from outside the EU and EU migrants are a net positive... but we wouldn’t need to restrict EU migration as we’re leaving soooooo it’s not much of a problem??

 

[Scaff]

But the problem is infrastructure.

Yours is an argument said by almost everyone in favour of keeping migration as it stands now but when exactly do you put a cap on it? What would be your target net migration and when would you think this should be achieved? Bear in mind we're talking only about health service provision at the moment. We haven't even mentioned housing, policing, school places etc.

Most arrive as childless adults, they have a lower crime rate and as such don't need schools.

That's why they are an overall net contributers to the system, which takes into account all of these factors. Which our aging native population doesn't provide, we actually need immigration to continue to be able to fund these things and grow them. Particularly as not all immigrants remain once they have families (shock, horror the UK isn't always seen as the promised land).

So no the problem is not infrastructure, no matter if you bold it.

Which is why you create more places while limiting migration in the mean time.

What's the balance between dead people and migration?

 

[UKMikey]

I don’t think it’s being prosecuted at all. I’ve seen many photographs (please note this isn’t something I seek out, but worked in a newsagents for a time) of women getting in and out of cars without underwear published in newspapers of varying descriptions...

I don't think all upskirt videos and photos are intended for public consumption anyway which'd make it harder to bring public decency charges against them if they're taken discreetly. Outraging public decency requires two other people to be outraged as I understand it. I could be misreading the law though.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-public-nuisance-and-outraging-public-decency

 

[HenrySwanson]

What hasn’t been enforced?
We have strict controls on immigration from outside the EU and EU migrants are a net positive... but we wouldn’t need to restrict EU migration as we’re leaving soooooo it’s not much of a problem??

But you're still looking at a figure that isn't in the tens of thousands which was promised. It really is a simple question - do you think net migration should be reduced or kept at the same level. You say "net positive" but does that include community cohesion?

Most arrive as childless adults, they have a lower crime rate and as such don't need schools.

This sounds like the health argument - they come young so don't add to the immediate pressure on the NHS. Do these childless adults stay childless forever?

Looking at this report:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2016

"The estimated total fertility rate (TFR) for foreign-born women decreased slightly in 2016 to 2.06 children per woman, the lowest level on record; figures are available from 2004."

The estimated TFR for UK-born women decreased slightly in 2016 to 1.75 children per woman, the lowest level since 2006.

Or:

Around 11% of children born in the UK in 2014 had one parent who was an EU migrant.

And I seem to remember you saying in another thread that first generation immigrants have a higher birth rate but this decreases in subsequent generations.

And the crime rate - are you saying that Black British or British Muslims - descendants of immigrants - have a lower crime rate than White British?

That's why they are an overall net contributers to the system, which takes into account all of these factors. Which our aging native population doesn't provide, we actually need immigration to continue to be able to fund these things and grow them. Particularly as not all immigrants remain once they have families (shock, horror the UK isn't always seen as the promised land).

Again, the net contributor argument, which conveniently ignores the problems I highlighted. Can you have too much of a good thing? I see immigration like medication - necessary in some cases but too much or too little (I'm looking at you Japan) is a bad thing

So no the problem is not infrastructure, no matter if you bold it.

Well yes it is, no matter if you ignore it.

More people require more things, news at 11.

So I'll ask again, how much more can the UK take and when would you think the rate of almost a quarter of a million net influx need to be reduced?

What's the balance between dead people and migration?

I don't follow?

 

[baldgye]

But you're still looking at a figure that isn't in the tens of thousands which was promised. It really is a simple question - do you think net migration should be reduced or kept at the same level. You say "net positive" but does that include community cohesion?

Net positive, as in economic net positive, as in they are a positive for our country.

community cohesion

What does this mean, what community?
I grew up in Stoke, you mean a community like that? A working class city who go out Friday night for a fight?
Or what about the small village my family moved too where the elderly residents of the village called the police when I went skating?
Or the community of Birmingham City where I now live that isn’t majority white?

 

[polysmut]

I just heard Leslie Grantham died. He gave me a cooked chicken once, just after his team lost the FA cup final to Liverpool (2006?). My next beer is for him.

 

[Scaff]

This sounds like the health argument - they come young so don't add to the immediate pressure on the NHS. Do these childless adults stay childless forever?

Some do, some don't, some stay forever, some don't.

It's not the nice binary thing you keep attempting to present.

Looking at this report:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2016

"The estimated total fertility rate (TFR) for foreign-born women decreased slightly in 2016 to 2.06 children per woman, the lowest level on record; figures are available from 2004."

The estimated TFR for UK-born women decreased slightly in 2016 to 1.75 children per woman, the lowest level since 2006.

Or:

Around 11% of children born in the UK in 2014 had one parent who was an EU migrant.

And? You do realise that you just showed the difference to be a whole 0.3, and that both are decreasing!

If as a whole they are still a net contributor to the system and those who are native born are not then they are supporting the entire system and helping it grow, infrastructure included.

And I seem to remember you saying in another thread that first generation immigrants have a higher birth rate but this decreases in subsequent generations.

For a specific group, that fun generalisation of yours again.

And the crime rate - are you saying that Black British or British Muslims - descendants of immigrants - have a lower crime rate than White British?

Actually I was talking about immigrants themselves, an d the groups you have mentioned are as a result of socioeconomic factors, unless you wish to suggest that non-whites are more predisposed to crime (which would of course be absurdly racist - given that white communities with a similar socio-economic background have just as high a crime rate and many share the exact same communities.

Again, the net contributor argument, which conveniently ignores the problems I highlighted. Can you have too much of a good thing? I see immigration like medication - necessary in some cases but too much or too little (I'm looking at you Japan) is a bad thing

No it still doesn't at all.

On the second point, so how would you base immigration.

Well yes it is, no matter if you ignore it.

More people require more things, news at 11.

Sorry, but no its not even remotely close to being that simple at all.

Usage of public services varies massively by income, family size, location health, age and a whole host of other factors.

You are also still failing to take into account that some people will give more to the system than they take out of the system, that pesky net benefit thing again!

If someone is a net contributor then not only have they paid for what they will use (so its costs zero to the public) they have paid for other peoples use of things as well. Therefore these things have cost the and others nothing. are you under the impression that's a bad thing?

So I'll ask again, how much more can the UK take and when would you think the rate of almost a quarter of a million net influx need to be reduced?

How much more could the UK take? Well actually in reality a hell of a lot more, given that only a very small percentage of the UK is actually used for housing and related infrastructure.

I don't follow?

Its quite simple you want to balance immigration in this area, so what balance do you strike between the level of immigration and people dying?

 

[boiltheocean]

So at the moment it's prosecuted under the less specific Outraging public decency act?

Normally that requires another witness, which is obviously difficult as half the point of up-skirting is to avoid being caught.

I think the most frustrating part of this story is that he clearly didn't bother reading the bill, apparently saying he still isn't sure what up-skirting is. It's a 2 page amendment and even myself, not a lawyer, can get a grasp of what up-skirting is from the definition provided. Now it must be debated, which in my eyes is a colossal waste of parliamentary time and money.

 

[baldgye]

Normally that requires another witness, which is obviously difficult as half the point of up-skirting is to avoid being caught.

I think the most frustrating part of this story is that he clearly didn't bother reading the bill, apparently saying he still isn't sure what up-skirting is. It's a 2 page amendment and even myself, not a lawyer, can get a grasp of what up-skirting is from the definition provided. Now it must be debated, which in my eyes is a colossal waste of parliamentary time and money.

To be fair, if he didn’t understand it (assuming he had read about it) then having it debated seems fair enough. Regardless of what is being brought into law if one MP isn’t fully ok with it being made law then it should be debated.

 

[polysmut]

I was accused of upskirting once by an air stewardess. I had taken a photo of my friend on the other side of the aisle and showed the picture to my accuser in an attempt to clarify things. She didn't seem convinced.
It's great that laws protect people from perverts but it's important to make sure there's proof of wrongdoing before labelling those perverts, which will be hard.

Edit: I exaggerated slightly, she never thought my phone camera was below her skirt level but she did think that I pointed it at her bottom. Which I hadn't. I recognise the difference.

 

[TexRex]

It's a 2 page amendment and even myself, not a lawyer, can get a grasp of what up-skirting is from the definition provided.

if he didn’t understand it (assuming he had read about it)

What is there to not understand?

Edit: I gather you're trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt, which is fine, and I'm not of the belief you're doing so because you agree with them, but the straightforward language used in the bill lends credence to the assertion that he didn't read it.

 

[baldgye]

View attachment 743828

What is there to not understand?

Edit: I gather you're trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt, which is fine, and I'm not of the belief you're doing so because you agree with them, but the straightforward language used in the bill lends credence to the assertion that he didn't read it.

Yeah I’m just trying to play devils advocate... I think the bill should passed, but if an MP isn’t 100% on it, it should go for vote.


Edit: I wanted to point this out because the MP is being attacked for his views and stances. I’m all for attacking the servant class that politicians are, but it’s setup to prevent laws being rushed in.

 

[ExigeEvan]

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...

I'm not sure you fully appreciate how the system works.

Tuition fees circa 2012 were approx £3k. A 3 year course would therefore cost less than £10k.

Maintenance grants (in addition to the £3.5k maintenance loan) are means tested, so despite you being an adult it is assumed that your parents (unless dead or emancipated) will support you though studies. Parents earn too much? You get the minimum loan, no grant.

So if you're a student nurse from a lower middle class outcome you get £3.5k for the year to live on. That includes your accommodation (which starts at about £2.5k per annum).

Now the answer to many students would be to get a job (especially those with less than 10 hours a week contact time) and work through the 12 week summer break.

Nurses meanwhile have to work a shift pattern, study for a degree and then find a very flexible job around all that. Funnily enough, many pick up additional shifts in hospitals to actually earn money.

Do nurses then tend to get a job? Yes generally.

Could you have done placements in-between not working and your longer holidays? Yes probably.

I graduated 2011, I was fortunate that my parents paid my rent because I got no maintenance grant (despite my other sister already being in uni, it's not included in the mean-testing). I earnt £6k a year working in Tesco doing 20+ contact hours a week for an Engineering degree, and I've nearly paid off my tuition and maintenance loan.

I think nurses are wonder men/women for putting up with the crap they go through just for their degree! And then to have to be the backbone of the NHS after all that? Better people than me.

 

[baldgye]

I'm not sure you fully appreciate how the system works.

Tuition fees circa 2012 were approx £3k. A 3 year course would therefore cost less than £10k.

Maintenance grants (in addition to the £3.5k maintenance loan) are means tested, so despite you being an adult it is assumed that your parents (unless dead or emancipated) will support you though studies. Parents earn too much? You get the minimum loan, no grant.

My parents ‘earned too much’. I got nothing, and my ‘rich’ parents couldn’t afford to support me due to paying off school fees.

I, like all of my friends made do... I went to uni around 2007 and lived in a fairly expensive city. Getting a part time job was an option but it wasn’t required.

The nurses I lived with where generally better off due to this and got a decent bursary (I don’t remember how much, it was over 10 years ago to be fair). I got zero. I don’t mean to be bitter but there are incentives to becoming a nurse.

 

[ExigeEvan]

(I don’t remember how much, it was over 10 years ago to be fair). I got zero. I don’t mean to be bitter but there are incentives to becoming a nurse.

Which is categorically wrong except for the tuition fee grant (which makes no difference at the time of studying). You might have thought they got something because they were doing more 'nurse stuff', but that was seperate paid hours on top of their studies and placement hours.