Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Stop the violence on NHS Staff - sign the petition

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/stop-violence-on-nhs-staff-nick-ferraris-petition/

There's a link to the petition in the above link.

The usual 100,000 required for a parliamentary debate.

40,000 at 10.30. 62,000 at 12.30.
«1

Comments

  • kigelia said:

    As a member of the NHS can I just say I'm fine thanks.

    There is already a law against assaulting me. Whether I am at work, home or the pub. Don't need anything else. Why does someone hitting my wife when she is at work warrant less punishment than if they hit me when I was working?

    Indeed. What about non-NHS ambulance operators? Non-NHS medical staff? First aiders at public events?

    If attacking or obstructing a medical worker who is trying to provide aid to someone causes the patient's injuries to worsen or their death, then the attacker ought to be charged similarly as if they caused those injuries (ABH, GBH, manslaughter), if that is not already the case.
  • kigelia said:

    As a member of the NHS can I just say I'm fine thanks.

    There is already a law against assaulting me. Whether I am at work, home or the pub. Don't need anything else. Why does someone hitting my wife when she is at work warrant less punishment than if they hit me when I was working?

    Why does assaulting a police officer warrant a separate offence ? .. because they are carrying out potentially dangerous activities during public service ..
    likewise, NHS staff might have to face drunks, drug addicts, nutcases and other volatile miscreants while carrying out very worthwhile public duties ..
    IF your Mrs works in 'dangerous environment' where assault is a distinct possibility, then she should also carry extra legal protection ..
    I would extend legal protection to social workers, local authority housing officials and all public servants who carry out potentially tricky and/or dangerous duties on behalf of the public .. they do not deserve to be attacked and assaulted no matter how frustrated members of the public might become if decisions and arrangements go against them.
  • edited January 2017
    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
  • se9addick said:

    kigelia said:

    As a member of the NHS can I just say I'm fine thanks.

    There is already a law against assaulting me. Whether I am at work, home or the pub. Don't need anything else. Why does someone hitting my wife when she is at work warrant less punishment than if they hit me when I was working?

    Why does assaulting a police officer warrant a separate offence ? .. because they are carrying out potentially dangerous activities during public service ..
    likewise, NHS staff might have to face drunks, drug addicts, nutcases and other volatile miscreants while carrying out very worthwhile public duties ..
    IF your Mrs works in 'dangerous environment' where assault is a distinct possibility, then she should also carry extra legal protection ..
    I would extend legal protection to social workers, local authority housing officials and all public servants who carry out potentially tricky and/or dangerous duties on behalf of the public .. they do not deserve to be attacked and assaulted no matter how frustrated members of the public might become if decisions and arrangements go against them.
    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?
    you're just repeating what @kigelia opined .. YES .. there should be ways found to prevent assaults .. what do you suggest ? .. mogadon in the water supply, compulsory lessons in love & peace for all ?
    one might ask why do steeplejacks or wall of death motorcyclists pay a higher insurance premium than bank clerks when they are at work ? .. answer .. because they undertake more dangerous tasks, likewise some workers deserve extra legal protection because of a heightened risk of assault ... I will not repeat myself again and rest my case
  • kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
  • edited January 2017

    se9addick said:

    kigelia said:

    As a member of the NHS can I just say I'm fine thanks.

    There is already a law against assaulting me. Whether I am at work, home or the pub. Don't need anything else. Why does someone hitting my wife when she is at work warrant less punishment than if they hit me when I was working?

    Why does assaulting a police officer warrant a separate offence ? .. because they are carrying out potentially dangerous activities during public service ..
    likewise, NHS staff might have to face drunks, drug addicts, nutcases and other volatile miscreants while carrying out very worthwhile public duties ..
    IF your Mrs works in 'dangerous environment' where assault is a distinct possibility, then she should also carry extra legal protection ..
    I would extend legal protection to social workers, local authority housing officials and all public servants who carry out potentially tricky and/or dangerous duties on behalf of the public .. they do not deserve to be attacked and assaulted no matter how frustrated members of the public might become if decisions and arrangements go against them.
    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?
    you're just repeating what @kigelia opined .. YES .. there should be ways found to prevent assaults .. what do you suggest ? .. mogadon in the water supply, compulsory lessons in love & peace for all ?
    one might ask why do steeplejacks or wall of death motorcyclists pay a higher insurance premium than bank clerks when they are at work ? .. answer .. because they undertake more dangerous tasks, likewise some workers deserve extra legal protection because of a heightened risk of assault ... I will not repeat myself again and rest my case
    I don't think the first thing that will go through the mind of a drunk person, someone going through a bad drug trip, or a mentally unstable person, when they are trying to resist medical attention is 'what are the legal ramifications of what I am doing'. Bad laws generally do not solve the problems they are supposed to solve.

    Surely assaulting someone, regardless of profession, is a crime, then it is up to the judge to decide when sentencing whether the offender deserves a harsher sentence because the victim was an NHS employee?

    The problem is front-line NHS staff are having to deal with volatile and unpredictable people in a way which they are either inadequately trained for or are not resourced enough to do. People who are violent due to their own anger, or due to too much drink, should be handled in conjunction with the police. People who are on drugs or have mental health issues should be handled in conjunction with relevant specialists. All too often, paramedics and A&E staff who are not primarily trained to deal with volatile members of the public are thrust into situations with little to no warning and they are already overstretched and exhausted.
  • kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools and for a pension company. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues). The pension company was an odd one for this: a few verbally abusive people on the phone but because our office was above a council building, we had an angry man storm into our office by mistake claiming no one would leave until he had his car unclamped.

    Is this a uniquely British thing? People feeling entitled to become abusive towards others for no apparent reason? If we need stronger laws, it should be across the board - all incidents of verbal and physical abuse ought to carry far harsher sentences. I imagine the guy who effectively held us hostage for all of 5 minutes until security wrestled him out probably got a 50 quid fine and a slap on the wrist, instead of perhaps more deservedly 1000 hours community service, an ankle-monitor, compulsory anger management classes and a nomination for Greater Manchester's Bell End of the Year awards.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Fiiish said:

    kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools, for a pension company and posted on Charlton Life. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues).
    Bollocks
  • Sad reflection on society that we're having to talk about this.

    yup, society being suckered in by fake news, even though violent crime has been steadily declining consistently for the last 40 years.
  • Well i have signed it. Nick talks about it every morning. Go on there and express your doubts.
  • Fiiish said:

    se9addick said:

    kigelia said:

    As a member of the NHS can I just say I'm fine thanks.

    There is already a law against assaulting me. Whether I am at work, home or the pub. Don't need anything else. Why does someone hitting my wife when she is at work warrant less punishment than if they hit me when I was working?

    Why does assaulting a police officer warrant a separate offence ? .. because they are carrying out potentially dangerous activities during public service ..
    likewise, NHS staff might have to face drunks, drug addicts, nutcases and other volatile miscreants while carrying out very worthwhile public duties ..
    IF your Mrs works in 'dangerous environment' where assault is a distinct possibility, then she should also carry extra legal protection ..
    I would extend legal protection to social workers, local authority housing officials and all public servants who carry out potentially tricky and/or dangerous duties on behalf of the public .. they do not deserve to be attacked and assaulted no matter how frustrated members of the public might become if decisions and arrangements go against them.
    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?
    you're just repeating what @kigelia opined .. YES .. there should be ways found to prevent assaults .. what do you suggest ? .. mogadon in the water supply, compulsory lessons in love & peace for all ?
    one might ask why do steeplejacks or wall of death motorcyclists pay a higher insurance premium than bank clerks when they are at work ? .. answer .. because they undertake more dangerous tasks, likewise some workers deserve extra legal protection because of a heightened risk of assault ... I will not repeat myself again and rest my case
    I don't think the first thing that will go through the mind of a drunk person, someone going through a bad drug trip, or a mentally unstable person, when they are trying to resist medical attention is 'what are the legal ramifications of what I am doing'. Bad laws generally do not solve the problems they are supposed to solve.

    Surely assaulting someone, regardless of profession, is a crime, then it is up to the judge to decide when sentencing whether the offender deserves a harsher sentence because the victim was an NHS employee?

    The problem is front-line NHS staff are having to deal with volatile and unpredictable people in a way which they are either inadequately trained for or are not resourced enough to do. People who are violent due to their own anger, or due to too much drink, should be handled in conjunction with the police. People who are on drugs or have mental health issues should be handled in conjunction with relevant specialists. All too often, paramedics and A&E staff who are not primarily trained to deal with volatile members of the public are thrust into situations with little to no warning and they are already overstretched and exhausted.
    That's why I object to those signs in hospitals, leisure centres etc telling you not to assault staff.
  • 78253. Well done nick Ferrari for supporting our GEMS
  • I listen to LBC occasionally in the car, I'm convinced they now exist just for an argument, than being news based, rather like Talksport.
  • edited January 2017
    Fiiish said:

    kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools and for a pension company. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues). The pension company was an odd one for this: a few verbally abusive people on the phone but because our office was above a council building, we had an angry man storm into our office by mistake claiming no one would leave until he had his car unclamped.

    Is this a uniquely British thing? People feeling entitled to become abusive towards others for no apparent reason? If we need stronger laws, it should be across the board - all incidents of verbal and physical abuse ought to carry far harsher sentences. I imagine the guy who effectively held us hostage for all of 5 minutes until security wrestled him out probably got a 50 quid fine and a slap on the wrist, instead of perhaps more deservedly 1000 hours community service, an ankle-monitor, compulsory anger management classes and a nomination for Greater Manchester's Bell End of the Year awards.
    What? No. Google "American workplace shootings." Or just, "American shootings." Also, we spent many, many years trying to implement harsh sentences for minor offenses and what we ended up with was overcrowded prisons that eat up budgets and no rehabilitation programs creating a prison industrial complex.
  • I listen to LBC occasionally in the car, I'm convinced they now exist just for an argument, than being news based, rather like Talksport.

    I agree, if you have the inclination write down some of the tripe the lady who does the show after James O'Brien comes out with. And see if you think she believes the case in point she is making or if she's doing it to be contrary and to get the great angry public to call in and have a go

    That's why I like the bloke who does the shift early doors. He just goes on a rampage without any callers. He's a joy
  • Carter said:

    I listen to LBC occasionally in the car, I'm convinced they now exist just for an argument, than being news based, rather like Talksport.

    I agree, if you have the inclination write down some of the tripe the lady who does the show after James O'Brien comes out with. And see if you think she believes the case in point she is making or if she's doing it to be contrary and to get the great angry public to call in and have a go

    That's why I like the bloke who does the shift early doors. He just goes on a rampage without any callers. He's a joy
    Same shit that Katie Hopkins comes out with. Professional shitcrumpets that just prey on peoples' frustrations with life in general and whip them up into a frenzy.
  • SDAddick said:

    Fiiish said:

    kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools and for a pension company. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues). The pension company was an odd one for this: a few verbally abusive people on the phone but because our office was above a council building, we had an angry man storm into our office by mistake claiming no one would leave until he had his car unclamped.

    Is this a uniquely British thing? People feeling entitled to become abusive towards others for no apparent reason? If we need stronger laws, it should be across the board - all incidents of verbal and physical abuse ought to carry far harsher sentences. I imagine the guy who effectively held us hostage for all of 5 minutes until security wrestled him out probably got a 50 quid fine and a slap on the wrist, instead of perhaps more deservedly 1000 hours community service, an ankle-monitor, compulsory anger management classes and a nomination for Greater Manchester's Bell End of the Year awards.
    What? No. Google "American workplace shootings." Or just, "American shootings." Also, we spent many, many years trying to implement harsh sentences for minor offenses and what we ended up with was overcrowded prisons that eat up budgets and no rehabilitation programs creating a prison industrial complex.
    I get what you mean but I feel the psychosis is different in America. Aren't the profiles of most shooters in America that they are suicidal anyway and a lot of it is perceived vengeance (even if it is something unconnected like attacking a cinema because you're angry at the government). Whereas in Britain someone will attack a nurse if they've been waiting in line too long, or attack a teacher because they gave their son detention, or attack a cyclist because they're late for work. I feel the difference is an American is more "I'm angry at life so I'm going to go out with a bang", whereas Brits are more like "I'm more important than everyone else, therefore if I don't get what I want I'm going to assault people because I feel entitled to do so".
  • Sponsored links:


  • 83,748 signatures. Should get there within the week. Then let parliament debate it. Scotland have the extra protection.
  • Fiiish said:

    SDAddick said:

    Fiiish said:

    kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools and for a pension company. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues). The pension company was an odd one for this: a few verbally abusive people on the phone but because our office was above a council building, we had an angry man storm into our office by mistake claiming no one would leave until he had his car unclamped.

    Is this a uniquely British thing? People feeling entitled to become abusive towards others for no apparent reason? If we need stronger laws, it should be across the board - all incidents of verbal and physical abuse ought to carry far harsher sentences. I imagine the guy who effectively held us hostage for all of 5 minutes until security wrestled him out probably got a 50 quid fine and a slap on the wrist, instead of perhaps more deservedly 1000 hours community service, an ankle-monitor, compulsory anger management classes and a nomination for Greater Manchester's Bell End of the Year awards.
    What? No. Google "American workplace shootings." Or just, "American shootings." Also, we spent many, many years trying to implement harsh sentences for minor offenses and what we ended up with was overcrowded prisons that eat up budgets and no rehabilitation programs creating a prison industrial complex.
    I get what you mean but I feel the psychosis is different in America. Aren't the profiles of most shooters in America that they are suicidal anyway and a lot of it is perceived vengeance (even if it is something unconnected like attacking a cinema because you're angry at the government). Whereas in Britain someone will attack a nurse if they've been waiting in line too long, or attack a teacher because they gave their son detention, or attack a cyclist because they're late for work. I feel the difference is an American is more "I'm angry at life so I'm going to go out with a bang", whereas Brits are more like "I'm more important than everyone else, therefore if I don't get what I want I'm going to assault people because I feel entitled to do so".
    Fiiish said:

    SDAddick said:

    Fiiish said:

    kigelia said:

    se9addick said:


    But all of those people already have "legal protection" - as does every person in this country.

    Surely the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the likelihood of our front line staff facing the possibility of assault ?

    Exactly. I am already protected by law. I don't feel comfortable with a law that says I am more important than another sector of society.

    My wife sees my job as more dangerous than her teaching role, yet she gets assaulted physically and verbally in her role way more often than I do (and not just by children). So tell me again why I should be protected by law to a greater extent than she is?
    I should have added teachers to my list of public servants deserving of extra legal protection ..
    I have worked in social housing, in schools and for a pension company. All have brought me in contact with adults who are either verbally abusive and/or physically abusive (not always towards me but towards colleagues). The pension company was an odd one for this: a few verbally abusive people on the phone but because our office was above a council building, we had an angry man storm into our office by mistake claiming no one would leave until he had his car unclamped.

    Is this a uniquely British thing? People feeling entitled to become abusive towards others for no apparent reason? If we need stronger laws, it should be across the board - all incidents of verbal and physical abuse ought to carry far harsher sentences. I imagine the guy who effectively held us hostage for all of 5 minutes until security wrestled him out probably got a 50 quid fine and a slap on the wrist, instead of perhaps more deservedly 1000 hours community service, an ankle-monitor, compulsory anger management classes and a nomination for Greater Manchester's Bell End of the Year awards.
    What? No. Google "American workplace shootings." Or just, "American shootings." Also, we spent many, many years trying to implement harsh sentences for minor offenses and what we ended up with was overcrowded prisons that eat up budgets and no rehabilitation programs creating a prison industrial complex.
    I get what you mean but I feel the psychosis is different in America. Aren't the profiles of most shooters in America that they are suicidal anyway and a lot of it is perceived vengeance (even if it is something unconnected like attacking a cinema because you're angry at the government). Whereas in Britain someone will attack a nurse if they've been waiting in line too long, or attack a teacher because they gave their son detention, or attack a cyclist because they're late for work. I feel the difference is an American is more "I'm angry at life so I'm going to go out with a bang", whereas Brits are more like "I'm more important than everyone else, therefore if I don't get what I want I'm going to assault people because I feel entitled to do so".
    So that self-entitlement is basically everywhere in LA, where I grew up. I'd argue that Americans are far, far, far more self-important than Britons. I have a visual learning disability, and growing up I had all sorts of hurdles put in my way because so many parents of kids who weren't doing well claimed their kids had a learning disability. I can't imagine that anyone you dealt with had 1/10 of the self entitlement of a west Los Angeles parents.

    Regarding American shooters, I would say that by-and-large most shootings are not done by someone who is suicidal. Mass shootings that make the news may be different. I'm getting into dangerous territory here in terms of speculating about something that is just about un-quatinfiable, so I'll leave it at "no I don't think so."
  • @Fiiish can you elaborate on your experiences with this in Britain? I think everyone gets protective over their children, so I would certainly expect some tensions in that level. But I'm a bit surprised to hear you think of Britons as being highly self-entitled.
  • edited January 2017
    SDAddick said:

    @Fiiish can you elaborate on your experiences with this in Britain? I think everyone gets protective over their children, so I would certainly expect some tensions in that level. But I'm a bit surprised to hear you think of Britons as being highly self-entitled.

    In the general sense, I see it all the time. People hogging as much space as possible when on public transport and when out shopping. When driving, plenty of people who think normal road rules don't apply to them, or park in front of driveways/garages rather than find a different space, or tailgating when there is absolutely no point (the number of times people tailgate me when there are a dozen cars in front of me so clearly tailgating me is not going to make me go faster). People beeping at each other when there is no need to, or throwing the fingers out the window/shouting at them as they go past. There seems to be no respect for the fact they share this planet with other human beings so sometimes they might need to share resources or be patient. This is not, by far, the case with all Britons, but even if say 10% of Britons feel this self-entitled, the other 90% take the typical stiff-upper lip attitude and don't say anything. If more of these selfish idiots were challenged on a daily basis I imagine this behaviour would see a downturn.

    If you want my specific experience, well one school I worked at had a blacklist of parents who were not permitted on school grounds due to their inability to discuss their child's education without threatening or resorting to physical violence.

    Likewise as I mentioned before, the bloke who thought the rational response to getting his car clamped was to threaten a bunch of office workers until he got what he wanted. It all stems from the same attitude "no one else matters except me". Perfectly exemplified by a horribly designed roundabout near my house where these arsehole drivers constantly just drive across because they think normal road rules don't apply to them. It didn't take long for the inevitable to happen and for two of these arsehole drivers to meet at the same time at the roundabout and collide into one another.
  • Now at 90000 well done
  • I listen to LBC occasionally in the car, I'm convinced they now exist just for an argument, than being news based, rather like Talksport.

    This
  • Fiiish said:

    SDAddick said:

    @Fiiish can you elaborate on your experiences with this in Britain? I think everyone gets protective over their children, so I would certainly expect some tensions in that level. But I'm a bit surprised to hear you think of Britons as being highly self-entitled.

    In the general sense, I see it all the time. People hogging as much space as possible when on public transport and when out shopping. When driving, plenty of people who think normal road rules don't apply to them, or park in front of driveways/garages rather than find a different space, or tailgating when there is absolutely no point (the number of times people tailgate me when there are a dozen cars in front of me so clearly tailgating me is not going to make me go faster). People beeping at each other when there is no need to, or throwing the fingers out the window/shouting at them as they go past. There seems to be no respect for the fact they share this planet with other human beings so sometimes they might need to share resources or be patient. This is not, by far, the case with all Britons, but even if say 10% of Britons feel this self-entitled, the other 90% take the typical stiff-upper lip attitude and don't say anything. If more of these selfish idiots were challenged on a daily basis I imagine this behaviour would see a downturn.

    If you want my specific experience, well one school I worked at had a blacklist of parents who were not permitted on school grounds due to their inability to discuss their child's education without threatening or resorting to physical violence.

    Likewise as I mentioned before, the bloke who thought the rational response to getting his car clamped was to threaten a bunch of office workers until he got what he wanted. It all stems from the same attitude "no one else matters except me". Perfectly exemplified by a horribly designed roundabout near my house where these arsehole drivers constantly just drive across because they think normal road rules don't apply to them. It didn't take long for the inevitable to happen and for two of these arsehole drivers to meet at the same time at the roundabout and collide into one another.
    Unfortunately I see a lot of this stuff as well. I'm pretty sure that a lot of it is down to living in such close proximity to so many others. Years a go a read a study where the researchers had bred small mammals (I know there were rats involved and I believe other species) in groups of varying sizes. They found that there was a maximum threshold for peaceable living. From this they'd somehow extrapolated a population figure for humans, below which you'd expect them to be respectful and peaceable and to generally get on well with their neighbours. Above this threshold you'd expect that significant numbers of people would feel dissociated from their peers in some way and would frequently behave in aggressive and/or antisocial ways. I forget the exact figures, but it roughly amounted to this: If you live your life in a small isolated village, you can expect the vast majority of people to be respectful and non-aggressive. If you live in a town, or worse still a city, you can expect to see violence and anti-social behaviour on a regular basis (not from everyone, but from enough for it to be a regular feature). Sadly, the trend is for people to live in ever more heavily populated places; I know it sounds fatalistic, but I think we have to accept some aggro as a consequence of the way we've organised our lives.
  • Stig said:

    Fiiish said:

    SDAddick said:

    @Fiiish can you elaborate on your experiences with this in Britain? I think everyone gets protective over their children, so I would certainly expect some tensions in that level. But I'm a bit surprised to hear you think of Britons as being highly self-entitled.

    In the general sense, I see it all the time. People hogging as much space as possible when on public transport and when out shopping. When driving, plenty of people who think normal road rules don't apply to them, or park in front of driveways/garages rather than find a different space, or tailgating when there is absolutely no point (the number of times people tailgate me when there are a dozen cars in front of me so clearly tailgating me is not going to make me go faster). People beeping at each other when there is no need to, or throwing the fingers out the window/shouting at them as they go past. There seems to be no respect for the fact they share this planet with other human beings so sometimes they might need to share resources or be patient. This is not, by far, the case with all Britons, but even if say 10% of Britons feel this self-entitled, the other 90% take the typical stiff-upper lip attitude and don't say anything. If more of these selfish idiots were challenged on a daily basis I imagine this behaviour would see a downturn.

    If you want my specific experience, well one school I worked at had a blacklist of parents who were not permitted on school grounds due to their inability to discuss their child's education without threatening or resorting to physical violence.

    Likewise as I mentioned before, the bloke who thought the rational response to getting his car clamped was to threaten a bunch of office workers until he got what he wanted. It all stems from the same attitude "no one else matters except me". Perfectly exemplified by a horribly designed roundabout near my house where these arsehole drivers constantly just drive across because they think normal road rules don't apply to them. It didn't take long for the inevitable to happen and for two of these arsehole drivers to meet at the same time at the roundabout and collide into one another.
    Unfortunately I see a lot of this stuff as well. I'm pretty sure that a lot of it is down to living in such close proximity to so many others. Years a go a read a study where the researchers had bred small mammals (I know there were rats involved and I believe other species) in groups of varying sizes. They found that there was a maximum threshold for peaceable living. From this they'd somehow extrapolated a population figure for humans, below which you'd expect them to be respectful and peaceable and to generally get on well with their neighbours. Above this threshold you'd expect that significant numbers of people would feel dissociated from their peers in some way and would frequently behave in aggressive and/or antisocial ways. I forget the exact figures, but it roughly amounted to this: If you live your life in a small isolated village, you can expect the vast majority of people to be respectful and non-aggressive. If you live in a town, or worse still a city, you can expect to see violence and anti-social behaviour on a regular basis (not from everyone, but from enough for it to be a regular feature). Sadly, the trend is for people to live in ever more heavily populated places; I know it sounds fatalistic, but I think we have to accept some aggro as a consequence of the way we've organised our lives.
    I've read similar studies. It is something to do with brain chemistry but I seem to remember the peak figure for an ideal 'village' is something like 200-300. This can be applied to areas other than just those who live around you - schools, offices etc. Smaller schools tend to have much better behaviour and happiness.
  • I can think of at least two NHS staff members I could easily do violence to.
  • I can think of at least two NHS staff members I could easily do violence to.

    I can think of at least two NHS staff members I could easily do violence to.

    don't do it .. your pension might be @ risk
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!