Phube Posted 6 June 2007 Author Posted 6 June 2007 have you seen the muck they served up though? if, like lemond, i had a dog, the RSPCA would've taken it off me if i served it that! Don't be so ridiculous!!! Dogs eat shit... literally. Okay the may not be hot and slightly dried. But it is food, and they have to serve hundreds of patients within an hour or so! Like I said buy your own if your gonna moan!!
stez Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Don't be so ridiculous!!! Dogs eat shit... literally. Okay the may not be hot and slightly dried. But it is food, and they have to serve hundreds of patients within an hour or so! Like I said buy your own if your gonna moan!! so do babies, but soicial services might have something to say if i fed it to a bairn! funny how hospitals used to be able to feed people perfectly well just a couple of years ago, there were proper plates and everything!
Guest Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 have you seen the muck they served up though? if, like lemond, i had a dog, the RSPCA would've taken it off me if i served it that! No, but hospital food isn't known for being Cordon Bleu, and she was bleating on about feeding kids (her own in particular from what I could gather), without any regards to what adults eat. As mentioned on this thread, as well as others, the Health Service is struggling to make ends meet (punnage there), and without going into the politics, whether people eat a decent meal is the tip of the iceberg. Of course, everyone is entitled to eat something edible, but when you start asking for groups to be singled out because they are "special", you're on a slippery slope to nowhere. For the record, my own opinion is to sit on the fence; my grandad was in hospital recently, and his dinner looked like the kind of thing you'd buy in Sainsbury for a quid, heat up then serve. Of course it's not the best, but it was edible.
breadandcheese Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Why has no-one told her that if she wants all this, she should go private. The NHS provides a good basic level of care for all. I would rather money be spent on suitable drugs than Gordon ****ing Ramsey in the hospital kitchen.
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 In most Countries you don't get jack diddly to eat in hospital without being charged for it. This country is TOO soft on certain things. Be thankfull that we have one of the best Hospital care in the world
James. Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 In most Countries you don't get jack diddly to eat in hospital without being charged for it. Dunno about anyone else but trying to understand that sentence almost made my head explode. Never was very good with double negatives.
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Dunno about anyone else but trying to understand that sentence almost made my head explode. Never was very good with double negatives. Let me put in simple terms, as obviously the previous statement was well above your capabilities! Here we go...concentrate--- In most Countries you don't get jack diddly to eat in hospital without being charged for it OR In most countries they don't give you anything to eat in hospitals unless you pay for it by ways of Medical insurance or they bill you for it after your stay in hospital! Hope that was a little gentler on your head!
James. Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Let me put in simple terms, as obviously the previous statement was well above your capabilities!Here we go...concentrate--- In most Countries you don't get jack diddly to eat in hospital without being charged for it OR In most countries they don't give you anything to eat in hospitals unless you pay for it by ways of Medical insurance or they bill you for it after your stay in hospital! Hope that was a little gentler on your head! Unfortunately my friend by saying "you DON'T get jack diddly" you are in fact using a double negative (assuming by jack diddly you mean nothing) and therefore you are implying that you DO get SOMETHING. So before you go around patronising (do you know what that means?) people take a little more care with your use of language. Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? Mwoohahaha (For a further example of a double negative, should you need it, read my signature)
Daggers Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Say, I ain't got nobody, and nobody cares for me! That's why I'm sad and lonely, Won't somebody come and take a chance with me?
AoWW Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Unfortunately my friend by saying "you DON'T get jack diddly" you are in fact using a double negative (assuming by jack diddly you mean nothing) and therefore you are implying that you DO get SOMETHING.So before you go around patronising (do you know what that means?) people take a little more care with your use of language. Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? Mwoohahaha (For a further example of a double negative, should you need it, read my signature) Aargh, don't get me started on double negatives! Oh, yeah... hospital food! (Vain attempt to get this thread back on track!) Personally, I think it's ok. Sure, given the choice I'd much rather eat something from a swish restaurant, but hospital food IS edible, if not desperately appealing. At the end of the day, unless you are fussy to the extreme (in which case, get over it!), you really won't starve to death. If it really bothers you that much, clearly you've have had a far too pampered existance... go private!
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Unfortunately my friend by saying "you DON'T get jack diddly" you are in fact using a double negative (assuming by jack diddly you mean nothing) and therefore you are implying that you DO get SOMETHING.So before you go around patronising (do you know what that means?) people take a little more care with your use of language. Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? Mwoohahaha (For a further example of a double negative, should you need it, read my signature) Actually my intellectual friend "jack diddlly" is actually short for the saying"JACK DIDDLY SQUAT" meaning "NOTHING". By me omitting the "SQUAT" part i was just implying most people would know the saying! So i wasn't really using a double negative was i ??? Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? EH? EH? Oh and yes i do know what patronising means!!!
Phube Posted 6 June 2007 Author Posted 6 June 2007 Actually my intellectual friend "jack diddlly" is actually short for the saying"JACK DIDDLY SQUAT" meaning "NOTHING".By me omitting the "SQUAT" part i was just implying most people would know the saying! So i wasn't really using a double negative was i ??? Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? EH? EH? Oh and yes i do know what patronising means!!! I hate to take side here but he's still right... you said DON'T get Jack Diddly Squat. Therefore you said "don't get nothing". Which in turn means EVERYTHING! Sorry...
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 I hate to take side here but he's still right... you said DON'T get Jack Diddly Squat. Therefore you said "don't get nothing". Which in turn means EVERYTHING!Sorry... YES...You are right!!! I didn't realise i said it that way. I will eat a shed load of humble pie after work Very sorry for trying to be clever. I didn't do nothing!!!! P.S I Cant get no sleep!! now shove them double negatives up your arse!!! Clever bastards!!!
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Let me put in simple terms, as obviously the previous statement was well above your capabilities!Here we go...concentrate--- In most Countries you don't get jack diddly to eat in hospital without being charged for it OR In most countries they don't give you anything to eat in hospitals unless you pay for it by ways of Medical insurance or they bill you for it after your stay in hospital! Forget the first bit just read after the OR!!
Daggers Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Can I point out that it is impossible to "get nothing" thereby making any phrase constructed from it quite redundant?
Raj Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 Can I point out that it is impossible to "get nothing" thereby making any phrase constructed from it quite redundant? Good point! Another clever bastard eh? P.S Did I use "get nothing"?
Rincewind Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 The thing is you go to hospital when you are ill and go to a top restaurant when you are well. Hospital staff are paid in peanuts, rtestaurant chefs have cart blanche with what they charge. If you prefer home-cooking and you have to go into hospital hopefully it is not too long before you return home and can cook your favourite home cooked samiiella-ridden meal which may have been the reason you were in hospital in the first place. I hate that phrase 'You don't get nothing' If you don't get 'nothing' then it is logical to assume that you get 'something'. There are a lot of things like this in the English language which a linguisic expert would have a feild day pointing out, but fortunately for some posters on here I am not one of those experts so am quite capable of the odd slip up in my usage of English grammar. I appologise in advance to anyone that spots my mistakes and will not get upset if they are highlighted by my betters. I used to know some-one who used to watch the news, read the media and write letters to the Gruadian and Times if he noticed any mistakes in the linguistical areas that politicians etc came out with. He was an ex-proffessor of linguistics at Liverpool university. I could understand pointing out some things but he found fault in nearly everything. Unless something is misunderstood and circumstances change because of it I see no reason to interfere. The phrase above I know as 'You don't get Jack Shit' I think I've heard it as you get Jack Shit but people are used to saying and understand the first because of the two words 'don't get' are prominent in the sentence.
Blue Bob Posted 6 June 2007 Posted 6 June 2007 My dad broke his back and was in hospital for 4 months. I went to see him everyday and took food in for him as the food the hospital wanted to give him was poor quality and tasteless. I think it is a false economy to try to skimp and save when nutrition is so important to a patient becoming well and strong enough to leave the hospital, it just means there recovery will take longer and they will need more beds / nurses ect to cope with the demand. I never get why contract out to a third party, if as some of the figures on this thread state that it costs £800m the company who takes on the contract wants to make profit on the contract. Most companies have a profit margin of 15% - 25% so at worst we are taking about £120m. Why not just do it in house and spend the £120m on better food, its still only going to cost £800m - the same it doesnt cost the health service anymore and the food will be better and hopefully speed up patients recovery. Or is it just an elaborate plan - high cost of parking, long wait times in A&E, poor food. All designed to scare off as many patients as possible???
James. Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Actually my intellectual friend "jack diddlly" is actually short for the saying"JACK DIDDLY SQUAT" meaning "NOTHING".By me omitting the "SQUAT" part i was just implying most people would know the saying! So i wasn't really using a double negative was i ??? Now who's got the capabilities eh? EH? EH? EH? Oh and yes i do know what patronising means!!! YES...You are right!!!I didn't realise i said it that way. I will eat a shed load of humble pie after work Very sorry for trying to be clever. I didn't do nothing!!!! P.S I Cant get no sleep!! now shove them double negatives up your arse!!! Clever bastards!!! My work here is done.
The People's Hero Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 What happened? Had a landmine blown off her arms?
Raj Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 What happened?Had a landmine blown off her arms? Wrong thread pal!
cisono Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Who would be providing the food, and would the quality be any better?
Daggers Posted 7 June 2007 Posted 7 June 2007 Back in the day - all nurses were female lookers, had to wear stockings and suzzies and were nympho's. Someone really fooked up the NHS. Everything I know about history I learned from Carry-On films
Phube Posted 7 June 2007 Author Posted 7 June 2007 Back in the day - all nurses were female lookers, had to wear stockings and suzzies and were nympho's.Someone really fooked up the NHS. Everything I know about history I learned from Carry-On films Except the Matron, she was always fat! Ooooh Matron!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.