
Things that Americans find incomprehensible about the UK - ColinWright
http://reprog.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/things-that-americans-find-incomprehensible-about-the-uk/
======
jasonkester
The thing that I notice most as an American living in England is the
overwhelming amount of bureaucracy in every aspect of life here, and how it's
just taken in stride as though nothing can be done about it.

You go to the swimming pool and try to pay your 3 pounds to go swimming, but
they can't give you the blue armband for the 10:00 session because it's only
9:40, but they can give you the yellow armband for the 9:00 session, but that
means you'll have to get out of the pool when the 9:00 session ends, but
you're free to go upstairs and have a cup of tea until 9:55.

Me: "But that's insane. The pool is open _all day_ "

Woman: [look of non-understanding, since this is how they've done things for
30 years therefore it is unquestionably correct, and nobody has ever
complained before, and certainly one should know not to come to the swimming
pool near the end of the hour, and who wouldn't welcome the opportunity to
have a nice cup of tea?]

Me: OK, I'll take the armband for the 9:00 session, and keep 3 extra pounds in
my trunks in case somebody asks me to leave in ten minutes so that I can walk
back here and pay you again then.

Repeat that experience for every interaction with every business or government
entity you deal with ever. You just want to give up and never leave the house.
Until the internet goes down and you have to deal with British Telecom, at
which point you start looking for property in France.

~~~
arethuza
I haven't encounted a swimming pool like that in the last 30 years, but I give
you British Telecom customer service - it is truly awful.

However, simple fix that for - don't use BT as an ISP - I don't know where you
are but we have about 20 to choose from.

~~~
jasonkester
_don't use BT as an ISP_

No! That's what they _want_ you to do.

Because then it means they get to care even less. It's still their
infrastructure and therefore their van that needs to come out to your house to
fix things, but you've added yet another layer onto the process.

They've worked their contracts with the ISPs so that the ISP can't actually do
_anything_ in your name, so you still end up on the phone with them, but
you're not their customer so you can't mention anything being wrong with the
internet as clearly that's your ISP's problem. No, now "the phone line is
really scratchy" is your only line of attack and god help you if you've
contracted _that_ out to a 3rd party (or worse, your ISP itself!)

Then they've cleverly broken off the van that comes to fix things (BT
OpenReach) as a separate company that you can't talk to, so you have to go
through BT's call center, which will helpfully tell you that there's no fault,
and that it will cost $150 to send a van out if it turns out they can't find
anything (d'ya feel lucky, punk?).

Fortunately, the van guys are actually good. And BT's infrastructure is so
terrible that there's _always_ at least one fault they can find. Usually about
5 meters further down the line than last time they were had the truck out two
weeks ago.

One day somebody will lay some fiber that has no BT-ness associated with it at
all. And they'll get everybody's business.

~~~
arethuza
"One day somebody will lay some fiber that has no BT-ness associated with it
at all."

Virgin?

------
ry0ohki
The only thing I always find shocking in the UK is how racist speech is
actually illegal, like serve jail time illegal. They will find surveillance of
someone making a racist gesture at a football match or something on Twitter,
hunt them down, and prosecute them. I'm assuming there are other limits to
speech, but since anyone can say any crazy thing here and not be in danger of
jail time, it's interesting to me.

~~~
hackerboos
Nevermind racist speech.

You can be jailed for telling distasteful jokes on Facebook...

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-
matthew...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-
woods-jailed)

------
TamDenholm
Pretty interesting and i agree with all the points. One thing about the
monarchy is the argument that they cost a lot. CGP Grey did a video explaining
the true cost of the monarchy. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw>

Also, check out his channel, he does loads of amazing videos.
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/videos>

~~~
junto
I'm ambivalent towards our Royal Family, but god damn this man makes a good
argument for them!

~~~
TamDenholm
Yep, i'm of the same opinion. Because of this i now think they're worth
keeping, however i'd like to see all the Royal cling'ons booted, the cousins
and third uncles etc etc.

------
dcminter
While we don't have a written constitution we are signatories to the European
Convention on Human Rights enacted under law in the UK as the Human Rights
Act. That's amounts to the same thing for many purposes.

Couldn't agree more about the problems with freedom of expression in the UK.
Something the US should be proud of in comparison.

~~~
talkingquickly
I'd also stress that not having a written constitution is totally different to
not having a constitution. More accurately the UK doesn't have a codified
(single reference document) constitution but does have strong constitutional
case law.

------
ColinWright
Sister post: Things that Brits find incomprehensible about the USA

[http://reprog.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/things-that-brits-
fin...](http://reprog.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/things-that-brits-find-
incomprehensible-about-the-usa/)

~~~
zalew
> 2\. Cheerleading - Overt sexualisation of teenaged and pre-teen girls.
> Sheesh.

Really? Is it a popular opinion in the UK or just author's touchiness?

~~~
ColinWright
I've just done a straw poll in my office. Of about 30 people, 5 didn't know
what I was talking about, 6 didn't express an opinion, and 15 or so think it's
creepy, sleezy, or both.

 _Added in edit: You seem to have been downvoted, which is a shame given an
honest question about a cultural difference, so I've upvoted you._

~~~
zalew
for me it's creepy to put it in a sexual context. how many of those people
frequent games that have cheerleaders?

I guess some day political correctness will lead to female beach volleyball
teams playing in jumpsuits.

~~~
summerdown2
> for me it's creepy to put it in a sexual context.

For me as a Brit, the only connection I have with cheerleaders is the web
portrayal, and from what I can see they are popularly portrayed in a sexual
content. A quick googling gives this sort of thing:

[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/560723-nfl-sexiest-
cheerl...](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/560723-nfl-sexiest-cheerleaders-
playoff-edition)

Frankly I'm astonished you don't see them as sexualised.

~~~
zalew
OP said "Cheerleading - Overt sexualisation of teenaged and pre-teen girls"
like it's per definition. Seriosly, there is no _overt sexualization_ in
dancing or performing acrobatics only because she wears a skirt. Maybe out of
the US (I'm not American too), as you imply, cheerleaders are more of a porn
fantasy girl stereotype because there is less of them in sports and they know
them only from porn and comedies? I don't know. To me it sounded like it's
op's imagination playing a role here.

BTW none of my text search results for 'cheerleader' alone show anything even
remotely erotic, and google knows I'm not a prude. When you attach 'hot' or
'sexy' to it and look at images, they won't be much different to when you
attach these words to 'secretary', while first result for secretary is a movie
about a stereotypically sexist portrayal of this job position with high-heeled
legs on the poster.

~~~
summerdown2
I imagine you're right. I am not interested in American sports, so probably
never see them in the right cultural context for America.

I always presumed sites like Cracked and Huffington post were transmitting the
US view to me:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/dallas-mavericks-
da...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/dallas-mavericks-dancers-
cheerleaders-uniforms-outfits_n_2100468.html)

<http://www.cracked.com/funny-2072-cheerleaders/>

Certainly in the UK it seems to me that there's a general presumption it's
sexualised. For example the tabloids:

[http://metro.co.uk/2011/03/30/crystal-palace-fans-defend-
sex...](http://metro.co.uk/2011/03/30/crystal-palace-fans-defend-sexy-
cheerleaders-as-a-good-luck-charm-647565/)

[http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-
sports/athletics/hottest...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-
sports/athletics/hottest-and-sexiest-athletes-fans-and-cheerleaders-1201517)

and even the Guardian:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/mar/15/ussport.stevenwe...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/mar/15/ussport.stevenwells)

As a single extra data point, I asked my wife about it and obvious sexuality
was the first thing she mentioned. I think this may be a peculiarly British
view, though.

By the way, I don't think I'm a prude either. If girls over the age of consent
(16 in the UK) want to be sexual I don't have a problem with it. My surprise
is a cultural one that it could be viewed any other way.

~~~
zalew
well, I guess it's about differentiating sexy and sexist. there is nothing
wrong with the first one.

------
zalew
> I think the American approach to enjoying sport is much better than ours.

in Poland we call it 'picnic'.

> That is very strange to me; but it’s far from being a characteristically
> British problem, and is more pan-European.

it's more pan-almost-everywhere-except-usa. take f.ex. football violence in
South America, in Europe we at least don't spray visitor team fans buses with
uzis. throwing stones and knives onto the guests sector is also less popular
than in, say, Turkey.

~~~
arethuza
There were letter bombs sent to a manager of Celtic:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/20/celtic-parcel-
bomb-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/20/celtic-parcel-bomb-neil-
lennon)

The sectarian element to football (and many other things) in parts of Scotland
is bizarre - which football team you support (assuming you support any team -
I don't) can be a _hugely_ important indicator in many contexts.

[NB My recently acquired interest in watching team sports only extends as far
as rugby - where the violence is kept on the pitch].

~~~
zalew
Well, I don't know about the Scottish scene, but such divisions often have a
historical political and cultural background. In Poland many football
rivalries are dated around the communism times, but some date up to the
beginnings of the 20th century, f.ex. Krakow's holy war.

~~~
arethuza
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_in_Glasgow>

~~~
zalew
tx. yeah, now I remember this event with our goalkeeper
[http://www.soccernews.com/boruc-fined-over-rangers-
gesture/9...](http://www.soccernews.com/boruc-fined-over-rangers-
gesture/9377/)

------
kalleboo
> It’s a surprise to me that so many people see the BBC as such an oddity. I
> know it’s an unusual way to finance broadcasting

It's not unusual at all:

"Whilst TV licensing is rare in the Americas, half of the countries of Asia
and Africa, and two-thirds of the countries in Europe use television licences
to fund public television"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence>

~~~
ams6110
Here (US) we just take the money from you whether you have a television or
not.

~~~
youngerdryas
Is this a complaint against PBS? They are as close as we get to the BBC and
they are excellent, I don't watch anything else except Netflix and sports.
Commercials are really mind numbing.

------
jongold
How about our sane gun control laws and our politicians who—while a bit
rubbish—aren't being paid hundreds of millions of $ by BigCorp™ to go against
the people?

~~~
dantheman
Sane gun control - you mean the near impossibility to own a gun? How is that
sane?

~~~
smackay
Sadly, it does not seem to be working:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre>

You don't even need a gun,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman>

~~~
nicholassmith
Hungerford and Dunblane kicked our gun regulation into effect, since then the
incidence of crimes committed with guns has plummeted and we've not had a
spree killing to the level of Dunblane.

(there are exceptions, the Cumbria massacre in 2010 springs to mind)

------
RyanMcGreal
> The progressive erosion of freedom that the last two points represent arises
> from a yet more fundamental issue which I’m surprised no-one picked up on:
> we have no (written) constitution.

The Canadian legal system is derived closely from the British system (except
in Quebec, where civil law follows the Justinian tradition). The major
difference is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was ratified 31 years
ago.

At the time, there was a furore in England over the fact that the Charter
would supersede statutes (which, in turn, supersede common law). Some
lawmakers considered it unconscionable that the courts could strike down a law
for violating the Charter. Apparently the fact that Canada wanted to patriate
its Constitution almost triggered a constitutional crisis in England.

Since then, Canadian courts have indeed struck down a number of laws,
including restrictions on access to abortion, restrictions on religious
expression and dress, denial of collective bargaining rights, prohibitions on
same sex marriage, and the right of convicted prisoners to vote.

The Charter enshrines human rights protection and equality for women,
minorities and other vulnerable Canadians - including lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender Canadians, through court decisions that extended the list of
prohibited grounds for discrimination in Section 15.

The sections on legal rights have also driven changes to the way police
services operate, strengthening protections for personal privacy, freedom from
unreasonable or arbitrary detainment and seizure, and due process on arrest.

In the years since the Charter was signed, legislatures still have the right
to pass laws - but thanks to the Charter, those laws must be so constructed
that they do not curtail our rights and freedoms. Where they do, courts now
have the power to strike them down.

I don't think I would want to live in a system where legislators were not
bound by a charter of rights and freedoms to ensure that statutes do not
violate them.

------
fossuser
This article seems way off point for hacker news (better fit for reddit) - and
even if you were to make the stretch that it fit in the intellectual curiosity
category, it's a little weak on that too.

------
citricsquid

        First, jwerpy is right to point out the ubiquity of surveillance,
        not only in London but in most British cities.
    

Part myth, part over reaction. The majority of CCTV in the UK is privately
owned (92%) and the government owned is relatively small in number:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#United_Kingdo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#United_Kingdom)

~~~
petercooper
This is one of the interesting things about CCTV in the UK. Not only is it
owned by a myriad of entities but it's monitored by a myriad of entities too.
Other than national networks for things like ANPR
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enforced_ANPR_in_the_UK>) tying together
people's movements through a town, into a nightclub, out onto a motorway, etc,
would involve working with numerous organisations, including the local
council, the owner of the nightclub, the county council, etc.

This lack of cohesion means that, currently, intrusions into privacy are hard
to automate and such footage can only be collected together into a complete
narrative with some serious effort on the part of the police.

(Bias disclaimer: I'm very much pro CCTV.)

~~~
nicholassmith
I'd be pro CCTV but it often seems an expensive boondoggle as the net effect
is pretty slim.

~~~
Osmium
As long as the government isn't paying for it, then what's the problem?
Private CCTV is great: it's difficult to abuse by the government for mass
surveillance, but can be subpoenaed after a crime's been committed so we still
get the benefit in that regard, and at no cost to the tax payer.

------
petercooper
_Wyrd also suggests that anti-intellectualism may be less ubiquitous and
pervasive in Britain than in America._

I'd find it hard to call on anti-intellectualism but anti- _exceptionalism_ is
certainly a lot stronger in the UK than the US. It even has a special name,
"tall poppy syndrome": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome>

~~~
arethuza
Worth noting that, as with pretty much everything in the UK that varies
_hugely_ depending on social class and location - it is (or at least was)
amazingly bad in traditional urban working class areas.

Where/when I grew up (a fishing port) exceptionalism was pretty strongly
celebrated and everyone knew and admired the most succesful skippers.

------
tomp
How about the ancient technology of the separate cold/boiling hot water pipes?
I'm not an american, but that's the most odd thing I find about the UK.

~~~
AndrewDucker
How do Americans do that? If you want to get both hot and cold water to
somewhere?

~~~
felxh
I think he is talking about the separate water taps/faucets for hot and cold
water instead of separate pipes

~~~
lucaspiller
That seems to be more a Britain vs everywhere else thing. All my European
friends always have a go at me about that.

~~~
junto
I second this. Living in Germany I am blessed with the best of German water
heating technology, which includes mixer taps (faucets). Whenever I go back to
the UK to visit family, I end up scolding myself on the hot tap. My theory is
that Brits either don't wash their hands, or if they do, they have a limited
amount of time before the hot tap becomes too hot!

~~~
summerdown2
The trick is to move your hands to and fro between the two to keep the
temperature ambient.

------
shaydoc
Bureaucracy is rife, particularly in Northern Ireland ( which is a part of the
UK ), in fact the entire economy is built on Bureaucracy. Government
departments have been the biggest employer here.

Some of the bureaucratic things they do is just absurd. For example, I have to
purchase annual road tax for my car. Usually its no probs, you can phone a
call center and pay over the phone after they do some "background checks".

I phoned to renew as usual yesterday, but was told they could not give me road
tax because my car is due for an MOT (road worthiness test) in May. Now my
current MOT is valid until 30th April, but because they can't predict whether
it will pass or fail, they won't sell me my road tax renewal (or let me pay
tax to them for the upkeep of the roads :-o )...which they sold me last year
no problem with similar circumstances, seems they have just added a little
more red tape to be sure :-)...

I could list several other interesting bureaucratic nuances, in fact you could
probably write a book on it....

------
jules
One of the things I find incomprehensible is the clothes and makeup that a
minority of young girls are wearing that from my perspective makes them look
like tiny 20 year olds that are planning to go to a nightclub. Or do I
remember incorrectly and is that an American phenomenon?

~~~
simonh
I have two young daughters and my mother is always on about this. It's her
contention that most of the young girls that end up abducted and murdered were
inappropriately dressed, and that this attracts sexual predators, so she's
keen that our girls are dressed well. Honestly, since she pointed this out and
I started paying attention to descriptions of what victims of this kind of
crime were wearing, I have to say she's got a point. Not to blame anybody but
the perpetrator, of course.

~~~
smtddr
Be careful there, that logic doesn't hold for a lot of things. It might not be
the clothes per se, so much as the activity and/or location they were at and
the clothes just happened to be appropriate for the activity.

Example: Maybe girls are attacked at nightclubs a lot. You can't blame the
clothes. The reason is probably because nightclubs are usually open at night.
And(at least in the bay area) some of the cooler nightclubs for younger people
are in sorta-questionable locations in terms of safety. And finally, if you're
a young lady going to a nightclub you're probably going to dress to look
attractive. The whole nightclub environment, young ladies dress up
attractively... guys being guys(TM)... add alcohol... shady-looking people
wandering about directly outside the nightclub... a lot of things to blame
there, but clothes wouldn't be top of the list.

~~~
jules
Just to be clear, I was talking about girls that are around 6-10 years old.
And I absolutely do not see this as an excuse for approaching them sexually in
any way (let alone worse). Despite their outfit and make-up it's patently
clear that they are children _not_ adults. I just find it very weird to see
that they want this, allowed and perhaps even encouraged by their parents.
It's understandable that children want to be older, the weird thing is the
sexualized way this is done.

------
arethuza
Worth noting that the "libel" laws are _not_ a UK-wide thing.

