All Posts in "Yank"

[ad#ad-1]

Every country has its unique group of wildlife. Although they may have many of the same animals present, the number varies; therefore, you might find animals in the UK that you rarely see in the US and vice versa.

Take for example, the gray squirrel. When I first came to the UK, I was informed that the gray squirrel had practically ran off the red squirrel. That may have been the case years ago, but some people had decided to save the reds and new colonies are appearing. But the most interesting fact is that the black squirrel has suddenly been introduced. Authorities have now discovered that they came from American squirrels who escaped from the zoo (which zoo?). Black squirrels are not very common in the US either, but they are prevalent in certain areas, such as Ohio.

Deer are very common in the US – you usually see them splattered about on the highways; although occasionally, you might be lucky enough to dodge them. We have not seen many dead deer here, but we have had whole families crossing the road almost oblivious to traffic. We also see herds of them grazing off the farmland. We know some farmers don’t appreciate that. I don’t believe they are hunted here as they are in the US.

The animal most likely to be hunted is the pheasant. We came upon a truck full of farmers and hunters, and dead pheasants loaded up on the side. Most likely, they were on their way to the local butchers. The pheasant is an interesting creature. Although it can fly, most often it chooses not to. Rather, it will duck its head forward and race out of your way, almost like a road runner. Pheasants are also most likely to be the road kill over here. That is in contrast to squirrrels, raccoons, deer, cats, dogs etc. in the US.

Another road kill that I have never seen in the US is the badger. They are usually nocturnal creatures, although occasionally, they may venture out during the day. Or, driving at night, you might just pick them up in your headlights.

For me, though, the most interesting animal is the fox. Yes, foxes are common in the US, too, but I have never had any experience of them. Without putting myself in their way, I have learned a few things about the fox that I would not have learned in the US. For example, the fox’s urine stinks almost as bad as a skunk’s deadly spray. We learned this after walking out of my in-law’s garage. My husband and I noticed a skunky smell, but it seemed rather confined. We saw a small yellow puddle nearby and my father-in-law informed us that there were foxes in the area that liked to leave a little of themselves in the neighbourhood. Another distinctive feature is the fox’s bark. The first time I heard it was when we were staying at my in-law’s (in the London area). I thought it was a baby crying until my husband informed me that it was a fox. More recently, I heard a very harsh cry, almost like a crow being mauled. It was eerie and spine-tingling. When I tried to explain it to my mother-in-law, she told me it was the fox’s mating call. Unbelievable. If I heard that call, I’d be likely to run the other way.

Other interesting animals that I have seen briefly and would like to know more about are the different species of waterfowl. Outside Arundel Castle were more-hen and coots. There were others that we have not identified and will probably need to bring some kind of guidebook. More for later then.

Yank by — February 24, 2009 in Wildlife 0

[ad#ad-1]

Arguably no country has done more to spread global democracy and personal liberty than Great Britain. However, the whole concept of a TV license and its enforcing authority reeks of indirect, petty, restrictive nanny-government involvement in an area that should be outside of its remit.

It is hard to believe but in the UK, it is mandatory to own a license in order to watch television. In fact, it is a criminal offence if you watch television without a license!

Imagine our surprise when within a week of moving in to our house we received a threatening letter from the TV Licensing Authority stating their records indicated no TV license on file for our address (the letter also emphasised the penalties – 1000 GBP plus costs – if we owned and used an unlicensed TV).

Of course, we own no television set and see no reason to own one if it is going to be taxed at a rate of GBP 140 per annum. So, we wrote back with a short, sharp response indicating we neither own nor plan to own a television. Shortly after, TV Licensing wrote back with another emphatic statement regarding criminal offences and penalties, and that we should expect a call from enforcement officers to determine whether or not we do need a TV license. This was about three months ago now and we have yet to hear from TV Licensing again.

Despite the aggressive, heavy-handed manner in which they are enforced by TV Licensing, it is worth being aware of certain aspects of TV licensing in the UK. Here is some information we have found out recently.

TV Licensing is essentially a subcontractor performing the BBC’s dirty work. They say that you should own a TV license if you watch TV in the UK. There are few exemptions (such as the over 74s). The license is renewable yearly and from April 2009 will cost a whopping GBP 139.50. Even if you do not own a TV but watch programs on the internet as they are being broadcast live on TV, you still need a TV license. If you own a TV but only use it for watching DVDs and videos then you can inform TV Licensing of the arrangement and they may grant an exemption.

We have not been able to find out the answers to these questions:

Do I require a license if I use my TV to watch only non-BBC television programes. (Why should you subsidise the BBC for watching Sky or other services you have already paid for?!)

Surely, it is only a matter of time before the anti-TV licensing brigade gain sufficient momentum to take a case to counter this unfair indirect taxation before the European Court of Justice.

Yank by — February 23, 2009 in British Culture 23

[ad#ad-1-front]

Though I may complain about the long and winding road, one thing I’ve noticed about the roads here is the lack of pot-holes. No, I don’t miss them, and never will. Having said that, I will admit that the recent snowstorms did create a couple holes on the road that were not there previously. However, it is no where near the extent I noticed on a regular daily basis in the US.

On previous trips as well as when we finally moved here, we have always travelled on smooth roads. Even in summer time, I did not see those orange cones indicating that road work was in progress. This is very different from the US, where it seems construction work stretches from year to year, usually commencing in the summer and sometimes not ending for several years. On some roads, the construction occurs every summer. On others, pot-holes are temporarily filled in, with re-paving occurring every2-3 years. The only times I have seen the orange cones over here are when they need to dig up for new piping or wiring, etc.

The few pot-holes I’ve recently encountered have been filled in, but whatever it is they use, it does not seem to dislodge when you drive over them, like they did in the US. It makes me wonder if the materials used over here are somehow stronger than in the US. It may help explain why they do not get the same level of damage. Or, perhaps there is less traffic overall. Or, could it be because the weather is much more temperate here, less likely to have extreme changes within a very short period. Whatever the case, I appreciate the lack of pot-holes. It would be very dangerous driving and dodging pot-holes. Especially when going down those extremely narrow country lanes with tall hedges obscuring your view of any oncoming vehicles.

Yank by — February 23, 2009 in Travel 0

[ad#ad-1]

Although second nature to most Brits, to Americans the stages involved between buying a car and getting it on the road can seem quite convoluted. 

Once you have picked a car and decided to part with your money, there will be three additional items (and consequently expenses) you will need to consider:  road tax, MOT test and insurance.

The MOT test is a roadworthiness test used in the UK on vehicles over three years old.  It tests the safety, roadworthiness and exhaust emissions of vehicles, and is not a test of the vehicle’s mechanical condition (your car could breakdown on the way home from the MOT test center following a successful MOT test.)  The MOT test must be carried out at one of the UK’s registered MOT test centers and usually costs in the region of GBP 50 (for a standard car).  Cars over three years old must have annual MOT tests.  It is illegal to drive a non-exempt vehicle on public roads without a valid MOT test certificate.  Also, your car will need to pass an MOT test before you can purchase a road tax disc.  The test is more thorough than the state inspections used in some US states (at least, in our experience).

If you buy a secondhand vehicle, then there may be several months remaining on the MOT test certificate.  If this is the case, you will not need to have your vehicle tested until the anniversary date of the existing certificate.

Once your MOT test is taken care of you can proceed to get a tax disc.  The tax disc is akin to the US vehicle license and registration, but for most, other than very new economical cars, it is more expensive (usually upward of GBP 100, and can be as much as GBP 400).  You can get a tax disc at either the post office or a local DVLA center.  Any vehicle used or just parked on public roads is liable for the tax, and stiff penalties are in place for those who do not hold a current tax disc.

If the dealer from whom you buy your car has a “documentation fee” then you should ask him what this covers.  We have found that it usually means he will walk down to the local post office and transfer the tax disc to your name.  For this he may charge you about GBP 50.  It’s something you can do easily yourself.

Similar to the MOT certificate, if buying a secondhand vehicle, the existing tax disc may have several months left to run. 

The third and final requirement for getting a car on the road in the UK is valid motor insurance.  There are very many insurance brokers in the UK, so be sure to shop around.  If possible, avoid brokers altogether and talk directly to an insurer.  There are several insurers that deal directly with the public.  Direct Line is one, there are others.  We very strongly suggest you talk to these before making a decision on your motor insurance;  it could save you many hundreds of pounds per year. 

Be very wary of the current fad of insurance comparison sites.  In our experience, these do not always list many inexpensive insurers and are mostly a vehicle for brokers to ply extra trade.

If you plan on driving on your US or overseas license then you should expect a hefty annual insurance premium (likely to be upward of GBP 1100 per year!)  from high street broker sold policies.  You might have  no choice but pay exaggerated premiums for 12 months until you establish a driving record in the UK.  However, if you have a clean insurance record in the US then read on![ad#ad-1]

UK motor insurance has a “reward” system based on the concept of “no-claims”.  For each full year you drive without an insurance claim against a UK insurer you earn points that give discounts on premiums for subsequent years.  This is no good if you have spent the last 5 or 10 years driving in the US!  So, why am I telling you this?  Well, if you talk directly to an insurer (such as DirectLine) they might be willing to honour your clean insurance record from overseas.  If you have, say, 5 years claims free with State Farm in the US then the insurer will consider a letter from State Farm when assessing your insurance.  You need to be able to prove a claims free record with your US insurer.

Yank by — February 22, 2009 in Travel 1

[ad#ad-1]

It was a beautiful day and we went to a village jumble sale in East Sussex.  Little did we expect what we were to find there.  Although jumble sales seem to have been disappearing from the British culture in recent times, we have been blessed with at least one, if not two, each weekend since the new year started.  So, as usual, we were intent on what would be waiting for us at the jumble.

So, we were unprepared for what awaited us outside the jumble.  Firle is a very small village, as the map indicated, but we have been fooled by what looks small on the map and what we might find in real life.  Yet, when we drove in, there was no doubt that this was an excessively small village.  In fact, there was not even a through street in the entire village.  We drove in and found a sign for a free village parking lot.  A sign further on thanked us for not parking in the village.  We found out, as we got out of the car and walked around, that there were some who did park in the village, but we assumed these must be the villagers who lived there.  Who else would have been crazy enough to want to try and drive through to the end of the dead-end street?

Firle was not only small, it was compact.  All the houses and shops were close together.  Furthermore, it does not look like it has had any recent developments in at least the last 100 years.  We had to go into the local shop/post office to get a stamp.  It was the quaintest shop I have yet seen, with groceries in the main room and a small post office area in another room.  I saw through a couple of doors that the owner must live in the rest of the building, as one looked to be a parlor and another, a dining room.  As we came out of the parking lot, we saw a very old looking inn, and on our way to the post office, someone set out a basket of bread for sale in their front yard.  There were several farms adjacent to each other and a manor home somewhere in the vicinity, but we could not see it.  These farms must supply fresh produce and meat, for we could not see a butcher or greengrocers in the area.  Otherwise, it seemed self-sufficient.  The place was so quiet, especially considering it was right off of the highway (A27). 

Add to this, a nice medieval church (St. Peter’s) at the end of the street, unspoiled by modern technology or buildings surrounding it.  It was a perfect picture-postcard view from the street, looking up the path to the church.  Unfortunately, we did not have a camera with us today.  Inside the church, you could see how old the building was, with the plaster flaking in some areas.  We did not buy the guide but looked around briefly.  We plan to come back with a camera.

Firle was quite a find for us today.  It felt like we had stepped back in time, to a simpler way of life.  It is located east, and slightly south, of Lewes.  Now that the days are getting nicer, we will have to take our camera with us everyday, in case we run across another village like this.  There will be more opportunity for exploring on short days out, and we hope to report on them.

Yank by — February 21, 2009 in My Journey 0

[ad#ad-1]

It has taken some time for me to adjust my view of the role of the post office.  In the US, it was a place to send and receive mail, buy stamps, apply for a passport, and buy postal orders and postal goods.  Also in the US, mail carriers delivered and picked up mail directly from your home.  In the UK, mail carriers only deliver mail.  If you want to mail something, you either have to stamp it and drop it into the post box, or you take it into the post office.  Since I am still getting used to the different postage rates, it is always best for me to go directly into the post office.  They have so many rules about the thickness, size and weight of the mail, that unless I have the right equipment, I would not be able to determine the postage on my own.  Of course, the US recently made changes in this area, so things are getting bad in that regard as well.  But, since the US uses a larger margin of weight for its mail, it’s easier to determine the amount of postage required.

Although the UK mail offers practically everything the US ones do, there are other differences.  First of all, the UK mail system is so complex and part of it is deregulated.  Don’t ask what that means, because I’m not sure anyone has a clear understanding of it.  Although postal workers are still civil servants, post offices are individually owned, but they are government licensed.  Therefore, the rates they charge are determined by Royal Mail.

One of the major differences is the role of the post office in daily life.  Not only do they provide postal services, they also function as a bank.  You can set up savings accounts and pay bills (council tax, TV licensing, etc.).  Also important is paying your vehicle tax.  You can either pay car tax at the post office or at the DVLA; however, the post office is much more convenient.  Also, the post office can draw your state pension and hand out your cash or deposit it into your bank account.  They have expanded their services to include offering insurance for everything.  And, last but not least, they have gotten into telecommunications.  They offer plans for phone, broadband, cell phones, and TV.  They  have certainly expanded in recent years.

So, whereas, in the US the postal service is simply a post office, the UK post office is so much more.

Yank by — February 19, 2009 in British Culture 0

[ad#ad-1]

How many times have we sat in front of the TV, in the US, watching a 30-minute program, which was interrupted a dozen times for commercials advertising such things as Prevacid, Nexium, Procrit, Viagra, and numerous other prescription and controlled drugs? A million, I’d say.

I have been struck by the fact that I have not run across any ads in the UK promoting medications. In fact, I was sitting there one day in my mother-in-law’s kitchen, when a commercial popped up for underpants. You know, the kind that older people wear to protect them from embarrassment when they accidentally leak. These panty protectors are found in US stores, usually in the baby diaper area, or near the pharmacy. However, they are hardly, if ever, promoted. No, more likely you’d see an ad for Detrol LA (Gotta go, gotta go).

What you see in the US is a culture devoted to taking pills to solve all kinds of problems. Instead of wearing a pad, they would rather take drugs, which can have effects on many other things. It seems that in the UK, they would rather accept minor inconveniences than to pop a pill. I don’t know if it’s the different attitude towards medication in general, or if there is a tighter control on the dispensing of drugs. I do know there is a law against advertising drugs on British TV. Whatever the case, I’m glad I’m not being bombarded with ads for medications.

Yank by — February 18, 2009 in British Culture 0

[ad#ad-1]

One of the concerns I had about transferring the kids to schools in the UK was the change in the school calendar.  I knew that schools here let out for summer vacation much later than in the US.  What I did not realise was that they get a week break every half-term, and two weeks at the term break.  So, in effect, they are in school for about 6 weeks, followed by a break each time, with 6 weeks for summer break.  Then, of course, there are a few bank holidays as well.

In the US, we had several holidays, some similar to the UK bank holidays, but they were usually dispersed through the year.  The bank holidays here are in May and August.  Other holidays, such as Christmas and Easter always fall during the school breaks.  Since Easter varies each year, the spring term may vary in length, with the summer term adjusting for the length of the spring term.

I’m not working at the moment, so for me to get adjusted to the schedule was relatively easy.  In the US, most people would book their vacations/holidays for the summer break, and sometimes spring break.  Here, there are more opportunities for holidays when they get a full week for half-term as well.

What I wonder about is how the kids will like it that they have to stay in school longer than they used to.  One advantage to them is that they will actually get to celebrate their birthdays during the school term now.  It used to be difficult to get invitations out in the summer and to have adequate attendance.

Yank by — February 16, 2009 in School 0

[ad#ad-1]

There are many differences in the educational system between the US and the UK. One of the most obvious is the emphasis on tests in the UK. I don’t really mean that they take lots of tests and quizzes over here. I sure haven’t seen that in school. But it seems that you are tested for every achievement.

These achievements are not always related to formal schooling. For example, to show you achieved a certain level in playing an instrument, you have to sit music theory tests as well as playing your piece. You get a certificate to show your achievement. My daughter never had that pressure in the States and we are unsure if we want to take this route. We wouldn’t want anything to dampen her enthusiasm; however, if she wants to do it, by all means, we will encourage it. In sports, as well, there are badges and certificates rewarded for accomplishing certain levels and skills.

However, other achievements are academic. Yet, in the US, some of these areas do not require any academic training. For example, a preschool or daycare worker can be hired without any previous experience in the US. Over here, you have to have special licenses, which can be obtained after a required training course. Similarly, in the US, home healthcare workers are trained on the job. Here, there is a formal training with certificate you must receive before even applying for work. Every little job requires a certificate of achievement. It’s no wonder that those who drop out of school, without even vocational training, find it difficult to find any jobs out there. There are few, if any, unskilled jobs available. One day, even the burger flippers will be required to take a formal test.

Yank by — February 15, 2009 in British Culture 0

[ad#ad-1]

One thing I’ve noticed in Britain is that, because it is part of the European Union, many products come from various parts of Europe. Usually the various languages on the packaging will give you a clue as to their origins. Different countries will have different rules regarding what is required on food labelling.

In the US, we did get products from countries around the world, but they were all packaged for the American market. Some items will have French and Spanish on them, but most do not. One of the requirements for food labelling is that the ingredients are listed, as well as a table for the nutritional content.

Here, despite the emphasis on health, some items are missing either a list of ingredients or the nutritional labelling. If I want to compare two different brands on their salt and fat content, sometimes I’m not able to. Makes me wonder why there is not a universal standard in the European Union for food labelling. It seems they have universal standards on all the “green” issues, but not on health.

Yank by — February 12, 2009 in Shopping 0