Most people would understand when hyperbole was being deployed. Besides, it's not improbable that at least some people have experienced this consistently.
I understand it. I just don't like it.
I do actually have a problem with my own doctors. Apparently one can get an telephone urgent appointment if one goes on line at 6pm the day before. The telephone appointment is supposed to decide whether or not a face to face appointment is needed.
A few weeks ago, I did get one but by the time I had typed out the reason for the appointment it had been taken my someone else. I am loath to criticise my doctors because I have all the necessary annual check ups and they never let me down with repeat prescriptions.
What really puzzles me is ' How does one get a routine appointment? '
Most people would understand when hyperbole was being deployed. Besides, it's not improbable that at least some people have experienced this consistently.
I understand it. I just don't like it.
The best response to language techniques you do not like is probably not to feign incomprehension though. It might make people think you're employing performative stupidity.
People use hyperbole all the time. I struggle to believe you don’t. However you would want to be one of those people who says "How many millions of times have I told you not to exaggerate!"
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels - or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
Most people would understand when hyperbole was being deployed. Besides, it's not improbable that at least some people have experienced this consistently.
I understand it. I just don't like it.
People use hyperbole all the time.
No they don’t. I’m not using it right now, so it’s not “all the time”
I am currently laid up in bed with a bug that has come round for the 3rd time in 3 months. I've just phoned to try and get an appointment because I'm fed up with the fucker, it makes me feel like shit, and the best they can offer me is 6 days away. I will either be better or dead by then (one of those statements is hyperbole, btw).
I can, thank goodness, get a call from the duty doctor sometime today, quite what will happen from that who knows? Meanwhile my mother is no 333 on a list to have her shoulder assessed - not for surgery, an assessment. The NHS is not well either.
Gone are the days when one could just wander into the GP surgery, and sit amongst the plague-ridden hordes, waiting to be seen there and then (more-or-less).
O! how the coughs, sneezes, and splutters used to bounce off those magnolia-coloured walls, and fill the mephitic air with germs!
Perhaps in some aspects matters have improved since then...
🤧🤧
But striking may not be the only sanction that could be tried.
So which sanction do you think they should try instead?
So you can see why the govt are not about to give them a huge pay rise.
As above, and as per your original post, they've experienced a pay cut in real terms, so it doesn't really represent a rise.
But don't forget that being a doctor in the NHS is still a great job. Job security almost guaranteed and, for women who want to have a baby, far better maternity leave and pay than in most jobs in the private sector.
Welcome to the global market for doctors, where pay and conditions in America or Australia is significantly better.
With all due respect I think you are splitting hairs. Yes, they have a pay cut in real terms; and so they are asking for a pay rise. I didn't intimate otherwise.
Sanctions could include 'working to rule' ie not beyond contractual hours and insisting on taking breaks that their contractual hours probably contain.
As far as the global market is concerned a UK doctor can't easily get a job in USA. I'm not sure if qualifications are recognised and you have to obtain a green card? Re Australia, again I think they are very particular about which doctors they allow in. My brother-in-law is about to take up a job in Oz having been a consultant in Yorkshire. I will be able to report back on how he gets on.
The NHS on the other hand actively tries to recruit healthcare workers from overseas and I suspect that is because they want to find workers who will accept lower pay and conditions that are nevertheless better than in their country of origin.
And replying to @Leorning Cniht , I don't think a union ballot about significant concerns about pay is comparable to a political election.
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels
- or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.
I suspect that a very small rope could pass through the eye of a very large needle
Sanctions could include 'working to rule' ie not beyond contractual hours and insisting on taking breaks that their contractual hours probably contain.
I'm sure that all scheduled procedures will then automatically fit into contractual hours and complications won't impinge into break times. There are usually good reasons why shifts - once started - can overrun.
As far as the global market is concerned a UK doctor can't easily get a job in USA. I'm not sure if qualifications are recognised and you have to obtain a green card? Re Australia, again I think they are very particular about which doctors they allow in.
They generally see it as a win as the training regimes are somewhat equivalent and language skills aren't a problem, until recently most of their shortfall was filled from elsewhere but about two years ago they explicitly started advertising to NHS doctors (the health care system there also operates with higher staffing ratios to begin with, meaning a less stressful environment).
Currently the NHS is running with a shortfall, and the doctor/patient ratio is well below the OECD average, certainly the UK can prove attractive for some people due to language and family reasons, but holding onto the doctors trained within its system makes basic economic sense.
And replying to @Leorning Cniht , I don't think a union ballot about significant concerns about pay is comparable to a political election.
What participation rate would you feel would be needed to take industrial action, and why do you think it rates a higher rate than those for political elections, or is this just a way of saying you are against striking altogether without doing so explicitly?
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels
- or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.
I suspect that a very small rope could pass through the eye of a very large needle
That "Eye of the Needle" story has, as you say, no real foundation. It's an attempt to soften Jesus' words. Not surprising really when you consider the wealth the Church was amassing in the mediaeval period when this idea first crops up.
Which brings us back to it being hyperbole. I think we're stretching the definitions of "rope", "needle" or both well beyond breaking point to get the former through the latter.
Sanctions could include 'working to rule' ie not beyond contractual hours and insisting on taking breaks that their contractual hours probably contain.
I'm sure that all scheduled procedures will then automatically fit into contractual hours and complications won't impinge into break times. There are usually good reasons why shifts - once started - can overrun.
Indeed, in terms of quality of care for patients it's almost certainly far better if a procedure is postponed than for the patient to be on the operating table and the bell rings for end of shift and the doctors and nurses go home part way through the operation. The dispute has been ongoing for years, action short of strike is the normal path of escalation of industrial disputes. But, it's action that doesn't usually get much attention (though, sometimes it does, for example when University lecturers stopped marking exams meaning many students didn't get their grades prior to graduation last year). Probably because action taken before resorting to strikes weren't reported, I've not been able to find any information on such action being taken.
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels
- or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.
That theory has also been widely debunked as complete and utter bollocks.
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels
- or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.
That theory has also been widely debunked as complete and utter bollocks.
Comments
I do actually have a problem with my own doctors. Apparently one can get an telephone urgent appointment if one goes on line at 6pm the day before. The telephone appointment is supposed to decide whether or not a face to face appointment is needed.
A few weeks ago, I did get one but by the time I had typed out the reason for the appointment it had been taken my someone else. I am loath to criticise my doctors because I have all the necessary annual check ups and they never let me down with repeat prescriptions.
What really puzzles me is ' How does one get a routine appointment? '
The best response to language techniques you do not like is probably not to feign incomprehension though. It might make people think you're employing performative stupidity.
People use hyperbole all the time. I struggle to believe you don’t. However you would want to be one of those people who says "How many millions of times have I told you not to exaggerate!"
We do have hyperbole approved by a fairly reasonable source, when all's said and done, unless you imagine that camels - or even ropes - can pass through the eyes of needles.
No they don’t. I’m not using it right now, so it’s not “all the time”
(Do you see what I did there?)
People use hyperbole all the time
Except when they don't
It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with Telford.
I can, thank goodness, get a call from the duty doctor sometime today, quite what will happen from that who knows? Meanwhile my mother is no 333 on a list to have her shoulder assessed - not for surgery, an assessment. The NHS is not well either.
Gone are the days when one could just wander into the GP surgery, and sit amongst the plague-ridden hordes, waiting to be seen there and then (more-or-less).
O! how the coughs, sneezes, and splutters used to bounce off those magnolia-coloured walls, and fill the mephitic air with germs!
Perhaps in some aspects matters have improved since then...
🤧🤧
With all due respect I think you are splitting hairs. Yes, they have a pay cut in real terms; and so they are asking for a pay rise. I didn't intimate otherwise.
Sanctions could include 'working to rule' ie not beyond contractual hours and insisting on taking breaks that their contractual hours probably contain.
As far as the global market is concerned a UK doctor can't easily get a job in USA. I'm not sure if qualifications are recognised and you have to obtain a green card? Re Australia, again I think they are very particular about which doctors they allow in. My brother-in-law is about to take up a job in Oz having been a consultant in Yorkshire. I will be able to report back on how he gets on.
The NHS on the other hand actively tries to recruit healthcare workers from overseas and I suspect that is because they want to find workers who will accept lower pay and conditions that are nevertheless better than in their country of origin.
And replying to @Leorning Cniht , I don't think a union ballot about significant concerns about pay is comparable to a political election.
I suspect that a very small rope could pass through the eye of a very large needle
I'm sure that all scheduled procedures will then automatically fit into contractual hours and complications won't impinge into break times. There are usually good reasons why shifts - once started - can overrun.
They generally see it as a win as the training regimes are somewhat equivalent and language skills aren't a problem, until recently most of their shortfall was filled from elsewhere but about two years ago they explicitly started advertising to NHS doctors (the health care system there also operates with higher staffing ratios to begin with, meaning a less stressful environment).
Currently the NHS is running with a shortfall, and the doctor/patient ratio is well below the OECD average, certainly the UK can prove attractive for some people due to language and family reasons, but holding onto the doctors trained within its system makes basic economic sense.
What participation rate would you feel would be needed to take industrial action, and why do you think it rates a higher rate than those for political elections, or is this just a way of saying you are against striking altogether without doing so explicitly?
That "Eye of the Needle" story has, as you say, no real foundation. It's an attempt to soften Jesus' words. Not surprising really when you consider the wealth the Church was amassing in the mediaeval period when this idea first crops up.
Which brings us back to it being hyperbole. I think we're stretching the definitions of "rope", "needle" or both well beyond breaking point to get the former through the latter.
That theory has also been widely debunked as complete and utter bollocks.
Phew! I'm glad you said that. For one moment I saw Lenny the Lion sitting on your knee!