One does not wish to appear unnecessarily arcane. Never let it be said that metaphorically 'moving with the times' is beyond the realms of personal achievement. One is also not known for tedious adherence to what some humorously (or otherwise) regard as the 'grammar police.'
However my instincts and, as it were, 'natural heckles' were raised by gratingly inappropriate phraseology today.
It was enquired during an online survey whether I had ever "gotten asked" about a subject before. Setting aside the awful Americanism implied in such a 'jargonistic' phrase it seemed wholly unnecessary. Gotten is a past participle of get. Would it have been too much to ask; 'have you been asked before' or something equally appropriate?
Whilst I understand the OED expresses that 'gotten' dates back to Middle English it is certainly no longer part of general usage in the current vocabulary. Even the North American version of 'gotten' is said to imply the process of obtaining ownership (for example, he had been and gotten us tickets for Lords). Whereas got is said to show possession (for example, he had already got tickets for the cricket).
Thus in this instance - that of the survey - 'gotten' became wholly redundant anyway.
Perhaps one is being a tad pedantic, but that cannot be helped when something seems so glaringly anachronistic.
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Young people are more abstemious - why aren't we celebrating that?
Not that many moons ago the British tabloids delighted in tales of youth drunkenness, alcohol fuelled town centre carnage and the horrors of binge drinking with metronomic frequency. Yet of late those stories have slowed down somewhat.
What can be the motivating factor for not publishing such stories that prey on the public fears and are usually manna from journalistic heaven?
It's not as though we are suddenly a 'dry' nation. Young Britons still drink far more heavily than their continental counterparts, as evidenced here; http://www.espad.org/Uploads/ESPAD_reports/2011/The_2011_ESPAD_Report_FULL_2012_10_29.pdf
Yet, despite this, things are (gradually) changing. the 2011 census had some revealing statistics,
'Just 12% of 11 to 15-year olds said they had drunk alcohol in the previous week in 2011 - down from 26% a decade earlier, according to National Health Service statistics. The proportion who said they had ever drunk alcohol fell from 61% to 45% over the same period.' (sourced via BBC news).
it seems that the 'joys' of drinking are dissipating gradually. The same NHS report points out that younger people are indulging in smoking and other recreational drugs less than previous generations too.
So what can be underpinning this gradual shift to being abstemious? Well, several factors seem key. University life, for one, is much more expensive now and students are likely to not want to drink away their carefully managed funds. Social networking and the Internet generally allow for much more social interaction and entertainment without the need for the fuel of alcohol or other stimulants.You could even argue a rising Muslim population contributes to this trend but the rise in British Muslims in no way accounts for the statistical fall in drinking and other recreational stimulants.
it may be a gradual shift and it may be on a small scale but shouldn't we as a society be celebrating? It is much better to see young people engaged in mental stimulation or entertainments than staggering forlornly and incapably around in an alcohol induced fug.
Many know from personal experience that there are few worse places to be than in a room where you're the only one sober and everybody else is a dribbling halfwit who in their own mind's eye sees themselves as a bon vivant with the elan to challenge Oscar Wilde!
So, British press - let's have the other side, let's point out the positives - and celebrate our youth for once instead of berating them all the time.
What can be the motivating factor for not publishing such stories that prey on the public fears and are usually manna from journalistic heaven?
It's not as though we are suddenly a 'dry' nation. Young Britons still drink far more heavily than their continental counterparts, as evidenced here; http://www.espad.org/Uploads/ESPAD_reports/2011/The_2011_ESPAD_Report_FULL_2012_10_29.pdf
Yet, despite this, things are (gradually) changing. the 2011 census had some revealing statistics,
'Just 12% of 11 to 15-year olds said they had drunk alcohol in the previous week in 2011 - down from 26% a decade earlier, according to National Health Service statistics. The proportion who said they had ever drunk alcohol fell from 61% to 45% over the same period.' (sourced via BBC news).
it seems that the 'joys' of drinking are dissipating gradually. The same NHS report points out that younger people are indulging in smoking and other recreational drugs less than previous generations too.
So what can be underpinning this gradual shift to being abstemious? Well, several factors seem key. University life, for one, is much more expensive now and students are likely to not want to drink away their carefully managed funds. Social networking and the Internet generally allow for much more social interaction and entertainment without the need for the fuel of alcohol or other stimulants.You could even argue a rising Muslim population contributes to this trend but the rise in British Muslims in no way accounts for the statistical fall in drinking and other recreational stimulants.
it may be a gradual shift and it may be on a small scale but shouldn't we as a society be celebrating? It is much better to see young people engaged in mental stimulation or entertainments than staggering forlornly and incapably around in an alcohol induced fug.
Many know from personal experience that there are few worse places to be than in a room where you're the only one sober and everybody else is a dribbling halfwit who in their own mind's eye sees themselves as a bon vivant with the elan to challenge Oscar Wilde!
So, British press - let's have the other side, let's point out the positives - and celebrate our youth for once instead of berating them all the time.
Friday, 3 January 2014
Charging for a&e attendance is inherently wrong
It has been proposed that 1/3 of GPs in England & Wales back the idea of charging a 'nominal' fee of £10 for a&e attendance which would be refundable f that visit were deemed to be for a 'genuine' reason.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/a_e_visits_third_of_gps_back_charges
The whole concept is not only abhorrent, but also badly thought out and potentially unworkable.
How would one implement such a scheme we can only wonder?
Would reception staff or nurses be expected to take a deposit whilst assessments are made? Someone could present, for just one example, with something apparently innocuous like a cold symptoms, cold , cough ,chesty say which could be masking graver symptoms. Should these medical assessments really be delayed by fiscal considerations? One rather thinks not.
How would the refunding system work? At the point of delivery once a patient has been diagnosed? What if that diagnosis is incorrect? What if a patient later returns having been assessed as a needless attendance to then be admitted? (Let's not pretend such things cannot and do not occur - they absolutely do!)
We are told that attendance will be assessed for their validity. By whom on wonders? Will such an assessment be challengable?
How does patient education fit into this? Many patients may feel genuinely concerned, worried even scared by what to medics are rather minor symptoms. That doesn't make them any less worrisome to the individual concerned. Should they be effectively fined for having their fears allayed? One would hope not. It would be better to educate these patients as to the right things to do and people to see.
It could be argued that it is morally corrupt to potentially charge someone accessing their a&e 'free at the point of care' as they have effectively already paid for it via their tax and national insurance contributions. It would not be too surprising to see an organisation legally challenge the validity of such a system when you consider this.
Finally there is the moral aspect of all of this. To many £10 may seem like a pittance and potentially act as a deterrent to time wasters. The argument has logic. Yet it lacks a sense of care. There are those who will look upon £10 as a payment they can ill afford and thus make a judgement deciding not to be seen.
Unfortunately some who make that decision will be genuinely ill or injured. I, for one, would rather see people who don't need seeing and manage to see the ones who do than see less people and miss the ones who don't need care.
We can see from other areas, like dentistry and optical care that people already make fiscally based decisions & in some cases miss the care they need; This would just be an extension of such a state of affairs brought on by an appallingly fiscally driven ideology.
In the words of Anurein Bevin, "Illness in neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community".
Anyone with a shred of human decency cannot argue with such a compellingly justifiable truth.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/a_e_visits_third_of_gps_back_charges
The whole concept is not only abhorrent, but also badly thought out and potentially unworkable.
How would one implement such a scheme we can only wonder?
Would reception staff or nurses be expected to take a deposit whilst assessments are made? Someone could present, for just one example, with something apparently innocuous like a cold symptoms, cold , cough ,chesty say which could be masking graver symptoms. Should these medical assessments really be delayed by fiscal considerations? One rather thinks not.
How would the refunding system work? At the point of delivery once a patient has been diagnosed? What if that diagnosis is incorrect? What if a patient later returns having been assessed as a needless attendance to then be admitted? (Let's not pretend such things cannot and do not occur - they absolutely do!)
We are told that attendance will be assessed for their validity. By whom on wonders? Will such an assessment be challengable?
How does patient education fit into this? Many patients may feel genuinely concerned, worried even scared by what to medics are rather minor symptoms. That doesn't make them any less worrisome to the individual concerned. Should they be effectively fined for having their fears allayed? One would hope not. It would be better to educate these patients as to the right things to do and people to see.
It could be argued that it is morally corrupt to potentially charge someone accessing their a&e 'free at the point of care' as they have effectively already paid for it via their tax and national insurance contributions. It would not be too surprising to see an organisation legally challenge the validity of such a system when you consider this.
Finally there is the moral aspect of all of this. To many £10 may seem like a pittance and potentially act as a deterrent to time wasters. The argument has logic. Yet it lacks a sense of care. There are those who will look upon £10 as a payment they can ill afford and thus make a judgement deciding not to be seen.
Unfortunately some who make that decision will be genuinely ill or injured. I, for one, would rather see people who don't need seeing and manage to see the ones who do than see less people and miss the ones who don't need care.
We can see from other areas, like dentistry and optical care that people already make fiscally based decisions & in some cases miss the care they need; This would just be an extension of such a state of affairs brought on by an appallingly fiscally driven ideology.
In the words of Anurein Bevin, "Illness in neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community".
Anyone with a shred of human decency cannot argue with such a compellingly justifiable truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)