Drinking, complaining and driving on the left: The things foreigners find most annoying about the British

A thread on the Quora website called 'What do foreigners find most annoying about Britain and British people?' has attracted a good deal of interest.
The list is varied, but a few general themes - not least the perceived British attitude towards foreigners - stick out and so in the spirit of better international relations, we've taken a look at the some of the problems.

1) British people are polite. So polite, in fact, they're just plain rude. 
The complaint here, it seems, is that British people have a tendency to use excessive politeness as way to be rude. Something for which we can only apologise. This, combined with a tendency to be a trifle disingenuous and a fondness for playing things down, has left foreigners feeling that British people just aren't saying what they mean.

So when Brits say "We should do this more often", what they actually mean is "I hope I never see you again".


And when they say "Oh, how interesting", what they really mean is "I would rather die than listen to you anymore".





2) British people stop being polite when they've been drinking.
Some of the comments on the Quora thread address the issue of young British people drinking abroad.
Gap year students, hen parties and stag-dos all came in for understandable criticism.
Also under scrutiny was the pub tradition of 'getting a round in', which some commenters felt just made things worse.

3) British people enjoy complaining.
They'll complain about just about anything, from the food to the weather to foreigners themselves.
And as one Norwegian commenter on the forum observed, they tend to complain in English and being rude about someone is apparently worse "when you speak a language people can understand".

4) British people have poor dress sense.
London Fashion Week begs to differ, but in general commenters on the forum appeared to feel that British people could make more of an effort sartorially. They could stop wearing socks with sandles when they're on holiday for a start. But no one mentioned bad teeth, a supposed British trait popularised by Canadian actor Mike Myer's fictional secret agent Austin Powers.

5) British people drive on the left
In fairness, so do people in some other parts of the world.
But then, in fairness, that may be the fault of the British.


http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/drinking-complaining-and-driving-on-the-left-the-things-foreigners-find-most-annoying-about-the-a6775441.html

Did Veya write this?

I don't think that teeth are related to fashion, unless you're in America of course.

Till I joined this forum I didn't actually realise the Brits were disliked so much.

IT'S only a few who think we should bow down to them

As opposed to hundreds of years of thinking they should bow down to us Nicko, and us thinking we could dispose of them in any way we saw fit.

Here we go again ...

Really, we have done some absolutely disgusting things within my lifetime.

sassy wrote:Really, we have done some absolutely disgusting things within my lifetime.

Speak for yourself.

If you look hard enough I imagine most every country has done disgusting things to others in the past....it's probably how they survived.
But the past is the past....learn by mistakes and move on.

Reading some of these threads it's a bit like 'my dad is bigger than your dad' mentality.

I was Rags

Kenya

Treatment of concentration camp detainees

During an eight-year conflict in Kenya from 1952 to 1960 in which Britain sought to restore order many Kikuyu were relocated. According to David Anderson, the British hanged over 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria during the Algerian War. It was found out that over half of them executed were not rebels at all. Thousands more were killed by British soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.^[77][78][79] Among the detainees who suffered severe mistreatment was Hussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of U.S. President Barack Obama. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods and two others were castrated.^[80]
In June 1957, Eric Griffith-Jones, the attorney general of the British administration in Kenya, wrote to the governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, detailing the way the regime of abuse at the colony's detention camps was being subtly altered. He said that the mistreatment of the detainees is "distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia". Despite this, he said that in order for abuse to remain legal, Mau Mau suspects must be beaten mainly on their upper body, "vulnerable parts of the body should not be struck, particularly the spleen, liver or kidneys", and it was important that "those who administer violence ... should remain collected, balanced and dispassionate". He also reminded the governor that "If we are going to sin," he wrote, "we must sin quietly."^[80][81]

Chuka Massacre

The Chuka Massacre, which happened in Chuka, Kenya, was perpetrated by members of the King's African Rifles B Company in June 1953 with 20 unarmed people killed during the Mau Mau uprising. Members of the 5th KAR B Company entered the Chuka area on 13 June 1953, to flush out rebels suspected of hiding in the nearby forests. Over the next few days, the regiment had captured and executed 20 people suspected of being Mau Mau fighters for unknown reasons. It is found out that most of the people executed were actually belonged to the Kikuyu Home Guard - a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight an increasingly powerful and audacious guerrilla enemy. In an atmosphere of atrocity and reprisal, the matter was swept under the carpet and nobody ever stood trial for the massacre.^[82]

Hola Massacre

The Hola massacre was an incident at a detention camp in Hola, Kenya. By January 1959 the camp had a population of 506 detainees of whom 127 were held in a secluded "closed camp". This more remote camp near Garissa, eastern Kenya, was reserved for the most uncooperative of the detainees. They often refused, even when threats of force were made, to join in the colonial "rehabilitation process" or perform manual labour or obey colonial orders. The camp commandant outlined a plan that would force 88 of the detainees to bend to work. On 3 March 1959, the camp commandant put this plan into action – as a result, 11 detainees were clubbed to death by guards.^[83] All of the surviving detainees sustained serious permanent injuries.^[84] The British government accepts that the colonial administration tortured detainees, but denies liability.<sup>[


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes</sup>

nicko wrote:Did Veya write this?

No Nicko
I also Drive on the Left  

the only one I'd actually say is the complaining one

most Europeans dress funny when they come here until they buy clothes same with northern North Americans (probably same in reverse) I assume it because of the climate difference and just not having suitable clothes.

The funniest and most accurate aspect is this.

1) British people are polite. So polite, in fact, they're just plain rude. 
The complaint here, it seems, is that British people have a tendency to use excessive politeness as way to be rude. Something for which we can only apologise. This, combined with a tendency to be a trifle disingenuous and a fondness for playing things down, has left foreigners feeling that British people just aren't saying what they mean.

So when Brits say "We should do this more often", what they actually mean is "I hope I never see you again".


And when they say "Oh, how interesting", what they really mean is "I would rather die than listen to you anymore".




We say things we do not mean, because we are fundementally polite in real life, but thinkl the opposite.
That to me is a failing as like on here we are honest and actually say what we mean but in real life a tad gutless and I see this from people i see daily.
I have always spoken my mind a trait I seem to have inherited from my mother, who is Irish, who never hold their punches.

Its great to be polite, but what people really need is down right honesty, as you will gain far greater respect from people.
I mean how many times have people here wanted to tell someone they are being stupid in a realationship and actually instead agreeed with them, when we should have told them they were being a twit? Tell people the truth, they may feel offended for a moment, but when they calm down, they will thank you for it later, as they will fundemnetally see that you were right.

It would be churlish to tell someone that you'd rather die than listen to them anymore though.

Raggamuffin wrote:It would be churlish to tell someone that you'd rather die than listen to them anymore though.

Indeed it would, but more the point why not be honest and say you do not enjoy their company?
Is that not being completely fake by not speaking the truth?

I have to add there is one thing on the list missed, from my perspective that British people have and love in abundance. I say this because I grew up with a mix of British values and different ethic cultural roots.

This trait always gets the longest and most heated debates.

Can anyone think what it is?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It would be churlish to tell someone that you'd rather die than listen to them anymore though.

Indeed it would, but more the point why not be honest and say you do not enjoy their company?
Is that not being completely fake by not speaking the truth?

Oh no, I couldn't say that to someone. Why hurt someone's feelings like that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Indeed it would, but more the point why not be honest and say you do not enjoy their company?
Is that not being completely fake by not speaking the truth?

Oh no, I couldn't say that to someone. Why hurt someone's feelings like that?

But is it far worse to be then dishonest?
Are you then being nice only then for your own view to feel better about yourself?
Not knocking you either.
Its always best to be honest because sometims people need the turth to help them get out of a rut.
People down, can bring others down, so why then not say this?
If a fear of hurting their feelings, is what stops you, how are you then helping them?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh no, I couldn't say that to someone. Why hurt someone's feelings like that?

But is it far worse to be then dishonest?
Are you then being nice only then for your own view to feel better about yourself?
Not knocking you either.
Its always best to be honest because sometims people need the turth to help them get out of a rut.
People down, can bring others down, so why then not say this?
If a fear of hurting their feelings, is what stops you, how are you then helping them?

No - I would not want to hurt someone's feelings in that manner, and there's no need for it. Why would it get them out of a rut? Someone else might find them very interesting, so there would be no need for them to change.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But is it far worse to be then dishonest?
Are you then being nice only then for your own view to feel better about yourself?
Not knocking you either.
Its always best to be honest because sometims people need the turth to help them get out of a rut.
People down, can bring others down, so why then not say this?
If a fear of hurting their feelings, is what stops you, how are you then helping them?

No - I would not want to hurt someone's feelings in that manner, and there's no need for it. Why would it get them out of a rut? Someone else might find them very interesting, so there would be no need for them to change.

But by being false, is that not far worse rags?
If the truth hurts, its because they are not listening to reason and it is effecting their lives by not listening.
Can you not see that?
How many times have you seen a friend struggle and wanted to say what you feel but were afraid to for fear of hurting feelings?
Did holding back what you wanted to say achieve anything?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No - I would not want to hurt someone's feelings in that manner, and there's no need for it. Why would it get them out of a rut? Someone else might find them very interesting, so there would be no need for them to change.

But by being false, is that not far worse rags?
If the truth hurts, its because they are not listening to reason and it is effecting their lives by not listening.
Can you not see that?
How many times have you seen a friend struggle and wanted to say what you feel but were afraid to for fear of hurting feelings?
Did holding back what you wanted to say achieve anything?

No, it is not worse IMO. Why would I want to tell a friend that they don't interest me, and that I would rather die than listen to them anymore? They would not be a friend if that was the case.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But by being false, is that not far worse rags?
If the truth hurts, its because they are not listening to reason and it is effecting their lives by not listening.
Can you not see that?
How many times have you seen a friend struggle and wanted to say what you feel but were afraid to for fear of hurting feelings?
Did holding back what you wanted to say achieve anything?

No, it is not worse IMO. Why would I want to tell a friend that they don't interest me, and that I would rather die than listen to them anymore? They would not be a friend if that was the case.

I am speaking about telling them the truth Rags., and saying they are bringing you down with how they are.
That is not saying you do not want to be their friend but being honest to help them
I never said anything about interest, as if we were friends we would be and have their interest at heart by being honest.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it is not worse IMO. Why would I want to tell a friend that they don't interest me, and that I would rather die than listen to them anymore? They would not be a friend if that was the case.

I am speaking about telling them the truth Rags., and saying they are bringing you down with how they are.
That is not saying you do not want to be their friend but being honest to help them
I never said anything about interest, as if we were friends we would be and have their interest at heart by being honest.

The example given was someone saying "oh, how interesting", so it is about interest.

Perhaps I might try to distract them by talking about something else, but if they had something on their mind they can talk about it all they want, and I would see if we can sort it out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I am speaking about telling them the truth Rags., and saying they are bringing you down with how they are.
That is not saying you do not want to be their friend but being honest to help them
I never said anything about interest, as if we were friends we would be and have their interest at heart by being honest.

The example given was someone saying "oh, how interesting", so it is about interest.

Perhaps I might try to distract them by talking about something else, but if they had something on their mind they can talk about it all they want, and I would see if we can sort it out.

But again if not interesting to you, are you again being dishonest by denying this?
To me its better to be honest, how bad would it be if that friend found out that you did not like this from someone else? The truth always comes out between close friends, and I have found always that people will far better respect you if you are upfront with them. You can say it in a nice way that does not offend either.
I am not saying to be blunt or rude/

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The example given was someone saying "oh, how interesting", so it is about interest.

Perhaps I might try to distract them by talking about something else, but if they had something on their mind they can talk about it all they want, and I would see if we can sort it out.

But again if not interesting to you, are you again being dishonest by denying this?
To me its better to be honest, how bad would it be if that friend found out that you did not like this from someone else? The truth always comes out between close friends, and I have found always that people will far better respect you if you are upfront with them. You can say it in a nice way that does not offend either.
I am not saying to be blunt or rude/

No, I don't think it's dishonest. I wouldn't tell someone else that I did not like it - I'm not two-faced. I don't agree that people will thank you for hurting their feelings - that's just an excuse for people to be rude and inconsiderate and then claim they were just being "honest".

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I have to add there is one thing on the list missed, from my perspective that British people have and love in abundance. I say this because I grew up with a mix of British values and different ethic cultural roots.

This trait always gets the longest and most heated debates.

Can anyone think what it is?

odd I Found the opposite that the french side was much more 'loving' in the stereotypical sense, the Anglo side was more stoic.

Generally that is the stereotype down here
Mediterranean/Arab most openly loving of their family,
then other Europeans,
then Indian and Anglo,
then Asian.

it is not that the others don't love, but more stoic in the display of their love

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But again if not interesting to you, are you again being dishonest by denying this?
To me its better to be honest, how bad would it be if that friend found out that you did not like this from someone else? The truth always comes out between close friends, and I have found always that people will far better respect you if you are upfront with them. You can say it in a nice way that does not offend either.
I am not saying to be blunt or rude/

No, I don't think it's dishonest. I wouldn't tell someone else that I did not like it - I'm not two-faced. I don't agree that people will thank you for hurting their feelings - that's just an excuse for people to be rude and inconsiderate and then claim they were just being "honest".

Of course its dishonest, because like I say, if you do not speak the truth to a friend, how on earth are you then a friend? Sometimes the truth does hurt, but would you rather someone stays continually hurt because you denied them the truth, thinking that a moment of hurt, from you, which is going to help them in the long run, is far worse than the hurt they already feel? What you do by that is continue and back up their hurt. Sometimes its better to be cruel to be kind and people will far more respect you for it and even more the person who is your friend.
How many people comes to those who agree or those not afraid to disagree?

veya_victaous wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I have to add there is one thing on the list missed, from my perspective that British people have and love in abundance. I say this because I grew up with a mix of British values and different ethic cultural roots.

This trait always gets the longest and most heated debates.

Can anyone think what it is?

odd I Found the opposite that the french side was much more 'loving' in the stereotypical sense, the Anglo side was more stoic.

Generally that is the stereotype down here
Mediterranean/Arab most openly loving of their family,
then other Europeans,
then Indian and Anglo,
then Asian.

it is not that the others don't love, but more stoic i

Disagree on some aspects there

All ethnic groups at one point cared to look after their families even into old age.
Times change that makes a need once we look to do be seen to be thrown to one side because money allows people to be selfish. If Arabs have money they do the same. so it matters not the ethnicity on this Veya.
The reason we see more Eastern people still care for their elderly members of family because they have not had the facilities in the west that save them having to cater for this need.
Its a sad fact, parents spend years raising us, and yet when in later life they need us, people fail to replicate this and come up with the poorest excuses they have their own fgamily to look after now.
Its the dafest thing I have ever heard, as they are family and when we were kids, they never gave excuses not to look after us and we should always repay opur parents for what they did for us.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I don't think it's dishonest. I wouldn't tell someone else that I did not like it - I'm not two-faced. I don't agree that people will thank you for hurting their feelings - that's just an excuse for people to be rude and inconsiderate and then claim they were just being "honest".

Of course its dishonest, because like I say, if you do not speak the truth to a friend, how on earth are you then a friend? Sometimes the truth does hurt, but would you rather someone stays continually hurt because you denied them the truth, thinking that a moment of hurt, from you, which is going to help them in the long run, is far worse than the hurt they already feel? What you do by that is continue and back up their hurt. Sometimes its better to be cruel to be kind and people will far more respect you for it and even more the person who is your friend.
How many people comes to those who agree or those not afraid to disagree?

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't think of any other way to say what I've already said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Of course its dishonest, because like I say, if you do not speak the truth to a friend, how on earth are you then a friend? Sometimes the truth does hurt, but would you rather someone stays continually hurt because you denied them the truth, thinking that a moment of hurt, from you, which is going to help them in the long run, is far worse than the hurt they already feel? What you do by that is continue and back up their hurt. Sometimes its better to be cruel to be kind and people will far more respect you for it and even more the person who is your friend.
How many people comes to those who agree or those not afraid to disagree?

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I can't think of any other way to say what I've already said.

That is okay Rags, we all have our ways, I just think honesty is best. If something is allowed to linger unchecked where they are hurt, and honesty can help them move forward, then to me as a friend we let them  down by not being honest.Remember our lives are but one big book, full of many chapters and you can never move forward in your lfe story, if stuck on the same chapter. You have to turn the page and start that new chapter to find out where your life is going to lead to next.

But respect your stance on this and will have to agree to disagree

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I have to add there is one thing on the list missed, from my perspective that British people have and love in abundance. I say this because I grew up with a mix of British values and different ethic cultural roots.

This trait always gets the longest and most heated debates.

Can anyone think what it is?

odd I Found the opposite that the french side was much more 'loving' in the stereotypical sense, the Anglo side was more stoic.

Generally that is the stereotype down here
Mediterranean/Arab most openly loving of their family,
then other Europeans,
then Indian and Anglo,
then Asian.

it is not that the others don't love, but more stoic i

Disagree on some aspects there

All ethnic groups at one point cared to look after their families even into old age.
Times change that makes a need once we look to do be seen to be thrown to one side because money allows people to be selfish. If Arabs have money they do the same. so it matters not the ethnicity on this Veya.
The reason we see more Eastern people still care for their elderly members of family because they have not had the facilities in the west that save them having to cater for this need.
Its a sad fact, parents spend years raising us, and yet when in later life they need us, people fail to replicate this and come up with the poorest excuses they have their own fgamily to look after now.
Its the dafest thing I have ever heard, as they are family and when we were kids, they never gave excuses not to look after us and we should always repay opur parents for what they did for us.

it's the stereotype and I was more meaning open displays of affection
Asian, Anglo and Indian don't do the big hugging kissing greetings like the others do.

veya_victaous wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Disagree on some aspects there

All ethnic groups at one point cared to look after their families even into old age.
Times change that makes a need once we look to do be seen to be thrown to one side because money allows people to be selfish. If Arabs have money they do the same. so it matters not the ethnicity on this Veya.
The reason we see more Eastern people still care for their elderly members of family because they have not had the facilities in the west that save them having to cater for this need.
Its a sad fact, parents spend years raising us, and yet when in later life they need us, people fail to replicate this and come up with the poorest excuses they have their own fgamily to look after now.
Its the dafest thing I have ever heard, as they are family and when we were kids, they never gave excuses not to look after us and we should always repay opur parents for what they did for us.

it's the stereotype and I was more meaning open displays of affection
Asian, Anglo and Indian don't do the big hugging kissing greetings like the others do.

Agreed

5) British people drive on the left
In fairness, so do people in some other parts of the world.
But then, in fairness, that may be the fault of the British.

Actually, that makes perfectly good sense.  When the rules of the road were written many centuries ago, most men rode horses and were right-handed.  

If you rode on the left side of the road and were confronted with a highwayman, he would likely be on your right and you wouldn't have to cross your arm over the saddle pommel to fend off with your sword.  You would have much more freedom, and a wider field on your right with which to thrust and parry.

The French invented driving on the right-hand side, just to be obstinate and contrary to the British.

Original Quill wrote:

5) British people drive on the left
In fairness, so do people in some other parts of the world.
But then, in fairness, that may be the fault of the British.

Actually, that makes perfectly good sense.  When the rules of the road were written many centuries ago, most men rode horses and were right-handed.  

If you rode on the left side of the road and were confronted with a highwayman, he would likely be on your right and you wouldn't have to cross your arm over the saddle pommel to fend off with your sword.  You would have much more freedom, and a wider field on your right with which to thrust and parry.

The French invented driving on the right-hand side, just to be obstinate and contrary to the British.

Nice one An interesting fact not many people are aware of but bang on the money

It was also because a man walking with wife kept her on his left so that his right arm was free to draw his sword If attacked.

I don't think she had to be his wife lol   But you are quite right about that.

Syl wrote:If you look hard enough I imagine  most every country has done disgusting things to others in the past....it's probably how they survived.
But the past is the past....learn by mistakes and move on.

Reading some of these threads it's a bit like 'my dad is bigger than your dad' mentality.

Now you've finally arrived!
It's very popular to hate the whites and the British here.

Are we bothered? Fuck no.
I'm too fucking important and white and British to be worried.

Oh and there's always the green-eyed monster that comes into play when people discuss England. It's a class thing doncha know?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:If you look hard enough I imagine  most every country has done disgusting things to others in the past....it's probably how they survived.
But the past is the past....learn by mistakes and move on.

Reading some of these threads it's a bit like 'my dad is bigger than your dad' mentality.

Now you've finally arrived!
It's very popular to hate the whites and the British here.

Are we bothered? Fuck no.
I'm too fucking important and white and British to be worried.

Oh and there's always the green-eyed monster that comes into play when people discuss England. It's a class thing doncha know?

/\....that bit in black. I agree with .