Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

But what's the practical difference? From my understanding of North American training it sounds very similar just different names for different points. They both take roughly the same length of time and involve a similar transition from academic to clinical, just the UK route (normally) has a mandatory medical undergrad degree instead of pre-med courses.

That sounds more like they're not realising that medical school here means the academic/sometimes undergrad side which allows you to train as a doctor, rather than medical training you need to practice (which in North America is called medical school)?

You got it sometimes with international law students too thinking the undergrad law degree (at a universities School of Law) will be a quick route - only to realise there's another three years of practical training before you're a lawyer (although this has entirely changed since I qualified so I don't know how it works anymore ).

I am not sure what you are missing, there is a fundamental difference.  A person graduating from medical school in North America has extensive clinical experience and so they are ready to jump right into a residency program.  Graduates from UK medical schools have none, and so they have a very difficult time trying to make the jump into residency training.

Maybe it as simple as understanding that there is no such thing in North America as an undergraduate medical degree, but people who graduate from medical school in the UK want to be treated as if they have an equivalent degree, and are disappointed when they learn it is in no way equivalent.

Sheilbh's point seems to me to be:

Real Doctor = undergrad + post-undergrad + practicum

In the UK they call the undergrad part "med school", and the rest of the stuff is the path to becoming licensed to actually practice independently.

In North American they call the post-undergrad part "med school" (and the undergrad part doesn't have to be specific to medicine, though there are pre-reqs), and the practical part is the last step to be fully licensed.

In practice they add up to about the same thing, even if the naming convention is different (including when someone is called a junior doctor).

[crazy canuck]

What you are both missing is that graduates from UK medical schools are applying to North American residency programs and they compete directly against North American medical school graduates for those positions.

Not at all semantics.

[Jacob]

What you are both missing is that graduates from UK medical schools are applying to North American residency programs and they compete directly against North American medical school graduates for those positions.

Not at all semantics.

We're not missing that. We (or at least I) agree that those people have done a poor job researching and are foolish for thinking they can shave off years of education because they don't realize the term "med-school" means something different on either side of the Atlantic.

That these people exist - and that there's a difference between what is meant by "med school" in the UK vs US/Canada - does not change or undermine the point that Sheilbh is making: that when someone is a a fully qualified doctor ready to practice independently they've received substantially equivalent educations in the US, Canada, and the UK.

[Sheilbh]

What you are both missing is that graduates from UK medical schools are applying to North American residency programs and they compete directly against North American medical school graduates for those positions.

Not at all semantics.

But I think that's what I mean - they're just looking at the name not the substance, and assuming its the same thing. But they're not, they're sort of false friends - the names describe different things.

They need to research what the substance of how doctors are educated/qualified in a different country rather than just the names - not just that I think it happens with other professional educations, like law school education in the UK and the US.

Edit: Or what Jake said

[crazy canuck]

What you are both missing is that graduates from UK medical schools are applying to North American residency programs and they compete directly against North American medical school graduates for those positions.

Not at all semantics.

We're not missing that. We (or at least I) agree that those people have done a poor job researching and are foolish for thinking they can shave off years of education because they don't realize the term "med-school" means something different on either side of the Atlantic.

That these people exist - and that there's a difference between what is meant by "med school" in the UK vs US/Canada - does not change or undermine the point that Sheilbh is making: that when someone is a a fully qualified doctor ready to practice independently they've received substantially equivalent educations in the US, Canada, and the UK.

That is a different matter and also a problematic/questionable statement. Even after going through the full process in the UK, docs still need to qualify here through a period of assessment because the training system in the UK does not mirror the training they would receive in North America.  Docs who do their full training within North America have no trouble moving about.

Jacob, you might have heard in the news that the BC government has expanded the number of practice ready assessment spots they have for foreign trained docs.  That is what that is.

[Sheilbh]

This country

Tate Modern viewing platform invades privacy of flats, supreme court rules
Court finds owners of apartments opposite London gallery face unacceptable level of intrusion

The residential flats (right) are overlooked by the Tate Modern's viewing platform. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
Rachel Hall
@rachela_hall
Wed 1 Feb 2023 09.55 GMT
Last modified on Wed 1 Feb 2023 10.40 GMT

The owners of luxury flats opposite the Tate Modern's viewing gallery face an unacceptable level of intrusion that prevents them enjoying their homes, the supreme court has ruled.

In a majority judgment, the court determined that the flat owners faced a "constant visual intrusion" that interfered with the "ordinary use and enjoyment" of their properties, extending the law of privacy to include overlooking – albeit only in extreme cases.

Noting that visitors to the Tate's viewing gallery, which is currently closed, photograph the interiors and post this on social media, Lord Leggatt said: "It is not difficult to imagine how oppressive living in such circumstances would feel for any ordinary person – much like being on display in a zoo."

The case involves five owners of four apartments in the Neo Bankside development on the South Bank of the Thames taking action against the Tate over the estimated 500,000 visitors looking into their homes from the viewing platform 34 metres away. The platform, which opened in 2016, provides a panorama of London as well as a direct view into their glass-fronted flats.

The supreme court decision had been anticipated as a landmark judgment enshrining tenants' rights to privacy and potentially opening the floodgates to thousands of neighbour disputes.

However, Leggatt was clear in his opinion that this was a specific case, as the Tate's decision to open a viewing gallery was "a very particular and exceptional use of land", and did not mean that residents could complain of nuisance because neighbours could see inside their buildings.

The judgment does not contain a remedy, and has deferred this to the high court, suggesting it may involve either an injunction or damages paid to the owners.

Leggatt's ruling was supported by Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones, while a dissenting judgment was given by Lord Sales, with whom Lord Kitchin agreed. All of the judges disagreed with an earlier appeal court ruling that visual intrusion did not fall under the scope of the law of nuisance, but were split on the appropriateness of the Tate's use of its land.

Sales agreed that it was possible for visual intrusion to be considered a private nuisance, but suggested that although the viewing platform wasn't an "ordinary" use of the Tate's land, it was reasonable, and citing "the principle of reasonable reciprocity and compromise, or 'give and take" noted that the flat-owners could "take normal screening measures" such as putting up curtains.

Leggatt said that asking the residents to put up curtains "wrongly places the responsibility to avoid the consequences of nuisance on the victim", noting that judges would not ask someone to wear earplugs to block out excessive noise.

He also disagreed with the idea that the properties' glass walls meant the claimaints were "responsible for their own misfortune".

The case has been running since 2017, when the owners of the flats applied for an injunction requiring the gallery to cordon off parts of the platform or erect screening to prevent what they said was a "relentless" invasion of their privacy. Judges in two courts ruled against the flat-owners for differing reasons.

The case was subsequently taken up by the supreme court, a move considered by legal experts to represent an indication that it is considered a matter of public interest.

There were two main legal questions: whether "overlooking" constitutes a private nuisance and whether the viewing gallery was a reasonable use of the Tate's land, given that it is an art gallery in south London.

Leggatt ruled against the earlier court of appeal decision, determining that this was a "straightforward case of nuisance". He acknowledged that the courts may have been influenced by what they perceived to be the public interest, and that there may have been "a reluctance to decide that the private rights of a few wealthy property owners should prevent the general public from enjoying an unrestricted view of London and a major national museum from providing public access to such a view".

In an initial high court ruling in 2019, Justice Mann accepted the argument that overlooking theoretically falls within the scope of existing legal protections against neighbourly intrusion into the home, the tort of nuisance, but argued that the glass-walled design of the flats and their location in central London came "at a price in terms of privacy".

The flat owners subsequently appealed, and in 2020 the court of appeal ruled that overlooking could never be considered a private nuisance, though it argued that if it could, then it would apply in this instance.

Natasha Rees, a partner at Forsters LLP and the lead lawyer advising the flat owners said her clients were "pleased and relieved" that Lord Leggatt had recognised how "oppressive" the viewing platform had been, and that they would work with the Tate to "find a practical solution which protects all of their interests".

James Souter, a partner Charles Russell Speechlys, said the judgment was "a landmark moment extending the law of nuisance to protect against visual intrusion".

He said the 3-2 split between judges showed "how finely balanced the case was even to the very end".

"Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see whether this case triggers more property owners to make similar claims where they feel they are being over-looked. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the circumstances where the new law will be applied will be rare but did highlight issues around CCTV and sharing of images from camera phones on social media," he said.

The comments from external lawyers are, I think, more telling than a Supreme Court justice saying that this is a very particular case on specific facts. I imagine there wil be a lot of cases testing the limits of when overlooking is a nuisance.

For me it's particularly annoying because the viewing platform had planning permission before the flats (though I think they were constructed at around the same time). I feel like if you buy a flat with floor-to-ceiling glass walls, in the centre of a city, next to the busiest art gallery in the country which has planning permission to build a viewing platform - that you can't expect privacy without curtains.

Also it's part of a trend of (typically) wealthy people moving to the country idyll next to, say, a cricket ground that's been running for years then consecrating every waking hour to shutting it down because it disturbs them. Or in the UK moving to Dalston or Soho and then trying to get licensing hours limited because you don't like how noisy the area you've moved to, which is defined by its nightlife, is at night.

Meanwhile in Cheshire - on the "you can't build new houses without infrastructure" there are planning objections to proposals to build six bus stops on a new estate because they're "directly outside people's homes" which "clearly violates residents' privacy"

[Tamas]

Meanwhile in Cheshire - on the "you can't build new houses without infrastructure" there are planning objections to proposals to build six bus stops on a new estate because they're "directly outside people's homes" which "clearly violates residents' privacy"
QUOTE
MORE...

 


I don't know how to feel about the Tate Modern thing. I imagine those people could have pre-purchased the flats without knowing there was a viewing platform straight into their flats was being built at the same time.

In a related note: why are Brits averse of curtains?

[Josquius]

Doesn't the agent of change thing apply here?
I can certainly see the argument if they bought those flats with nothing looking into them then the tate knocked a hole in their wall and built the platform.
And if this is the case I do agree on the curtain point. It's putting the onus on the side losing out to try to minimise its losses and suffering a degraded experience for it.

If however there was already an overlook or planning permission in place for one then screw those moaners.

[Sheilbh]

Bus stop NIMBYism is a new one for me - they flag that their might be double deckers which means even upstairs isn't private

We've had NIMBYism about railway stations, rail infrastructure, solar farms, homes, wind farms etc - so it makes sense that we'd eventually get bus NIMBYism too.

I don't know how to feel about the Tate Modern thing. I imagine those people could have pre-purchased the flats without knowing there was a viewing platform straight into their flats was being built at the same time.

But there was planning permission in place for Tate at the time - which feels like something their lawyers should have flagged to them given that there's a very big, public building next door to their flat.

Although I also tend to be fairly cynical about people buying flats very quickly without seeing them. Which I know is increasingly common but I think there is a risk to that.

In a related note: why are Brits averse of curtains?

We're not? The Dutch are averse to curtains - they're very standard in the UK (though there's a class angle on nets, shutters etc).

If however there was already an overlook or planning permission in place for one then screw those moaners.

The overlook had planning permission before the flats.

Edit: Also I suppose my view on the agent of change thing here is that by definition if you're moving into a glasswalled flat in a city centre, you can't expect privacy. You're in a city centre and your walls are made of glass. If you want privacy move to the countryside or one of the (many) homes available for multi-millionaires buying luxury flats that mainly face onto courtyards or gardens etc.

[The Larch]

(though there's a class angle on nets, shutters etc)

Is there anything in the UK for which there's no class angle? 

Though the truly advanced technology for this purpose, AFAIK only available in Europe's south, are blinds.

[Syt]

I watched a Wisecrack video yesterday (I know  ) where they argued - not entirely convincingly, IMHO - that the vibrant cultural scene of the UK in the 60s-80s was due to the generous British post-war welfare state allowing creatives to live off benefits while pursuing their artistic passions. (And of course Thatcherism ruined that )

[Josquius]

I watched a Wisecrack video yesterday (I know  ) where they argued - not entirely convincingly, IMHO - that the vibrant cultural scene of the UK in the 60s-80s was due to the generous British post-war welfare state allowing creatives to live off benefits while pursuing their artistic passions. (And of course Thatcherism ruined that )

I'd say that overstates it but I'd certainly agree there's a connection between unemployment not equalling an inescapable pit of doom and taking risks in pursuing your passions (and business).

[Richard Hakluyt]

I was interested in this :

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/01/uk-benefit-changes-have-pushed-people-into-dead-end-low-paid-jobs-says-ifs

There are far too many low-paid jobs that are supported by benefits in the UK, probably a reason for the low rate of productivity growth. Bring back proper unemployment that ends once someone has found a decent job or has been retrained so they can get a decent job 

[Sheilbh]

Is there anything in the UK for which there's no class angle? 

No - although I think that's probably true of any capitalist society, we just talk about it (and have an unusual amoung of

Though the truly advanced technology for this purpose, AFAIK only available in Europe's south, are blinds.

Yes. But aren't they as much about temperature regulation/keeping the sun out? Which generally isn't a worry (yet) in the UK or Northern Europe. In summer or winter we want to let the sun in as much as possible because it's not (yet) so hot and the light wins over the heat.

I watched a Wisecrack video yesterday (I know  ) where they argued - not entirely convincingly, IMHO - that the vibrant cultural scene of the UK in the 60s-80s was due to the generous British post-war welfare state allowing creatives to live off benefits while pursuing their artistic passions. (And of course Thatcherism ruined that )

I think there's something to it - though I don't think Thatcherism ruined it (I think Blairism did ). The 80s and the 90s were not a fallow time for British creatives after all

I think there's two sides of the story - one is the welfare bit. Britain still has a welfare state, by the way (Thatcher didn't really do much on welfare - there were moves to "workfare" in her third term) And in comparison with Europe the post-war British welfare state wasn't generous.

I think the key shift is that it was broadly non-conditional until the 90s and the shift to conditionality really kicks in with Blair/Third Way. So you lose unemployment benefits if you refuse more than x number of job offers, or you need to evidence making x number of job applications. But I think that's a trend of the 90s left - it's Third Way welfare reform (so, maybe, in Germany Schroeder's reforms?). What creatives lost I think wasn't money but time because I think benefits were higher but there were lots more built-in sticks to encourage people to get back into the job market and to police how they use their time: training courses, job applications, accepting any job or getting sanctioned etc.

The other side which I think is as important was that cities were cheap. It wasn't just the UK - the same applies to New York, San Francisco, Seattle. Loads of places that were creative hubs in the 60s-90s were in one way or another on their uppers and goinng through urban decline. So young creatives could not only have the time to do their work only having to sign on once a week rather than post-welfare reform conditionality, but they could, on that income, afford to live in cities with each other. I don't think that exists anywhere in the English speaking world anymore - so loads of "London" creatives have moved to Berlin (causing resentment by driving up costs) and now Dresden. Pre-war I heard lots of talk about Kyiv as the "next Berlin" and now maybe it's Tbilisi.

So I think time is one bit but I think housing cost/space is the other really key part of this (plus the urban decline ended so there's fewer things like squats in the UK or artists in ex-industrial lofts in New York).

[Grey Fox]

What you are both missing is that graduates from UK medical schools are applying to North American residency programs and they compete directly against North American medical school graduates for those positions.

Not at all semantics.

I wonder if any of them applies to positions in Quebec and get even more confused.