The Local NHS.....Paths......and a *Shelter*.....

[Davie P]

^ my word, a balanced response to a positive comment - what indeed is this place coming too!  

Edited September 12, 2018 by Davie P

[JohanofNess]

^ my word, a balanced response to a positive comment - what indeed is this place coming too!  

 

It's amazing the positive vibes this shelter has already generated and will going forward

 

 

Folks out for a wander get a shelter

Alcoholics, smackheads and randy teens apparently get somewhere to do their activities

Last but not least folk that like to complain about stuff have something to complain about.

[Colin]

Just shows that  it CAN be done.

 

I just think that, sometimes, people can be a little to sensitive and take things far to personally.  A bit like "road rage" but, the internet variety.  (Net Rage(?))

[Roachmill]

The flip side to that is folk can be too insensitive, make things too personal and grumble about things that only exist in their own minds. There's been a lot more of that going on, than the other.

[Ghostrider]

^ Some folk call it as they see it and don't believe in wrapping everything up in layers of cotton wool and sprinking pretty flowers over it when it stinks..

Edited September 12, 2018 by Ghostrider

[Colin]

And you have to respect that.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Re my earlier comment that the funding came from Scottish National Heritage; it's a real shame that Healthy Shetland have seen fit (if you pardon the pun) to remove several of their own comments and others enquiring about maintenance (who will pay for it; after all, they don't have the funds to adequately maintain the existing NHS buildings), alternative designs, why no handrail on the path, etc.

 

Scottish National Heritage state on their website that they get most of their funding from the Scottish Government.

 

I've been pretty neutral so far on this thread but inside; yes, I am taking it personally.  I am taking it personally that the Scot. Gov. would rather spend money on a few shelters quite a distance away from the hospital rather than to address the real issues.  I'm currently on a 28 week waiting list.  I have an incurable disease, yet there is a nationwide shortage of consultants.  There are hardworking staff who frequently go without meal breaks yet these shelters are meant to be a place for them to enjoy too?  Gosh, when will they get the time?

When I visit GBH, I'm more concerned with how close I can park my car to the front door and can't always get a parking space in the GBH car park so have to park elsewhere instead; this won't get any better when they dump the MRI mobile scanner in the car park.  I then have to get back home as quickly as I can to return to work.  On days I don't feel up to driving I take the bus but even then, I don't think I'd manage to get beyond the bus stop to where they propose to site this shelter.

 

To me, it's a case of priorities.  Sure, encouraging people to exercise is a good thing but as Colin so eloquently pointed out above, let's look at the priorities.  We have buildings falling down, a lack of what is regarded as pretty basic standard diagnostic equipment these days (MRI scanner), long waiting lists, vacant posts, etc.  Never mind, let's whack a shelter up.

 

No, let's not.  Will it have lighting?  Solar powered?  Or mains fed electricity?  Who will pay for its maintenance?  Who will stop 'undesirables' using it at night or during the day?  Will it become a glorified fag shelter?  Then don't forget the fact that there's bound to be signage to pay for too, so that those visiting the hospital can find where it is.

It's all money coming out of the Scot. Gov.'s pot, yet we have a health service that right now, simply cannot afford such niceities.  

Edited September 12, 2018 by Suffererof1crankymofo

[Davie P]

Does the land even belong to them?  Do they own up to the wall, the footpath, or to the sea?

Will it have lighting?  Solar powered?  Or mains fed electricity?  Who will pay for its maintenance?  Who will stop 'undesirables' using it at night or during the day?  Will it become a glorified fag shelter?  Then don't forget the fact that there's bound to be signage to pay for too, so that those visiting the hospital can find where it is.

 

With respect, most of these are quite specific questions probably best directed at Healthy Shetland. They provide an email address on the web page.

 

From a personal point of view, I think we're on troublesome ground if we start deeming people as 'undesirable' and try to prevent them from using a public shelter. If they're breaking the law and/or causing a public nuisance then it's a police matter.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Davie P

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@ Davie P

 

And likewise with respect, some of those quite specific questions had been posed by other people on their Facebook thread but they were deleted!

I should have used italics.  How do you refer to people who commit crime?  Criminals.  Those committing undesirable activities in such shelters ... you know where I'm heading.  It's not just a police matter when people participate in undesirable activities.  For starters, you're not meant to smoke on NHS property or within bus shelters but you can bet that someone will smoke in the shelter.  Those commiting public order offences (shooting up in public, off ya face in public, etc.) are people participating in not just criminal activities but what are these days deemed to be undesirable activities, and those designing and proposing to place shelters in such a location as is being proposed here, I would argue do have a responsibility; ergo, it is not just a police matter.  Did you know that bus shelters these days are designed not to have comfy seats for the purpose of discouraging certain folk from sitting there all day?

Crikey, semantics!   (and yes, I know that's a tad of waffle but it's 2.50am and I can't sleep!)

[Davie P]

And likewise with respect, some of those quite specific questions had been posed by other people on their Facebook thread but they were deleted!

 

All the more reason to contact them directly

Edited September 13, 2018 by Davie P

[Capeesh]

I like the yoal design, better value for money and more identifiable with Shetland, the other ones could be anywhere in the world and I would be none the wiser to what it was meant to represent without reading a description.

I agree with those who believe the NHS should allocate part of it's budget to encourage and promote healthy living.

I'm sure I read somewhere about how our leisure facilities have saved the NHS money.

My guess is it's a bit like owning a car, keep it well maintained and you'll spend less on garage bills.

[Davie P]

I like the yoal design, better value for money and more identifiable with Shetland, the other ones could be anywhere in the world and I would be none the wiser to what it was meant to represent without reading a description.

 

 

Good point re: value for money (dry stane dykes aren't cheap!) and it would put old boats that might not be seaworthy any more to good use. It would be good if they included some information on da history of the boats too. I like the idea of taking a break fae the wind and knowing my shetler used to go to the creels aff Nesbister!

[Roachmill]

^ Some folk call it as they see it and don't believe in wrapping everything up in layers of cotton wool and sprinking pretty flowers over it when it stinks..

 

 

And you have to respect that.

 

Oh my holy...

 

http://www.happy-career.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/eye-roll-meme-5-roll-memes.jpg

[Colin]

Back to normal I see. 

[Ghostrider]

@ Roachmill:

 

You seem to be advocating a concept that only those who have positive opinion(s) towards any given idea, and who express them in the most extremely benign and sanitised manner possible have vaild opinions, and any opinion that could somehow be perceived by someone as having negativity, and/or comes from someone who shoots from the hip has no validity and neither do they.

 

How does this promote an exchange of ideas and a generate robust debate, and how does it promote mutual respect and inclusion? On the face of it, such a policy is most likely to only encourage a troop of timid, mealy mouthed, sycophantic automatons.

 

Life is all about compromise, and that means compromise by both extremes, not just one. Life on Shetlink has already been made a compromise for anyone who isn't scared to stand up and call b/s in a forthright, abrupt and to the point manner, when, in their opinion, that is what they are seeing. The T&C's are there to ensure that, and that is where the aribtary line in the sand is drawn.

 

What compromise are the snowflakes of this world and their enablers making? Absolutely none apparently. Instead of being made to understand that however 'offensive' to them personally someone's opinion is, or however 'offensively', to them, someone chooses to express an opinion they hold, as long as no statutes or medium specific T&C's are violated, that person has exactly the same right to hold that opinion, and/or express in the manner of their choosing, as a snowflake has to be 'offended' by that secific opinion, and/or how an individual expresses an opinion. Apparently everybody else is supposed to modify their opinions, and/or how they choose to express them, to accomodate all possible snowflakes' sensibilities.

 

How do snowflakes' and their enablers expect to have the right to decree anything they like to be 'offensive' and have it abolished, yet when other folk find snowflakes' penchant for taking 'offence' so easily at random issues 'offensive', those folk are told their 'offence' is invalid, and to just suck it up.

 

The arbitary line on what is 'offensive' and what isn't, again is drawn in the sand between what is directed at specific individual(s) on a personal level, and what is directed in general terms, and I don't think most reasonable minded folk would argue with that. Snowflakes and their enablers are engaged in a concentrated and sustained campaign to redraw where that line in the sand is, by attempting to dictate to the rest what defines 'offensive'.