Receiving a giant poster this afternoon from the Fu Hong Society promoting their Walkathon round the Peak next month, I was struck by the language used to describe the people (or "persons" as they are called) who will be the beneficiaries of this year's event – those "with intellectual disabilities and with autism".
Now, I know very little about autism, except that it exists as a "disorder" on a "spectrum", which suggests to my occasionally cynical non-medical mind that those who are charged with treating it (or, perhaps I should say, those who charge for treating it) haven't got a clue what it really is but are nonetheless certain that it is a medical condition rather than, say, a psychological one brought about largely by the very fact of having parents.
My own diagnosis would be that autism and ADD (plus its offshoot ADHD – are there any others yet?) are very rarely found in orphans or those fortunate enough to have been brought up by nannies. But I digress.
It was the "intellectual disabilities" bit that interested me most. I've noticed that this formulation has been gaining ground at the expense of "mentally handicapped", which is a pity, in my opinion, as "mentally handicapped" has a nice ring to it and is easily abbreviated to Mencap. What old Brian Rix makes of all this, with the charity he made famous facing the grisly prospect of being re-abbreviated to Telebil is anyone's guess.
I met one of those persons who may be benefiting from this year's fundraising on Tai Po Road this morning. We actually met in the Route 81 bus stop lay-by after he'd decided to move from the inside lane to the outside one without looking.
"But I indicated!" he offered rather feebly as he passed over the necessaries for touching up the paintwork above my nearside rear wheel.
"Yes, but you're meant to do that before you change lanes," I thought to myself – such wisdom is wasted on a MVP driver, "and even then it's a precondition for moving rather than sanction for doing so."
So, spare a thought for intellectually challenged Lexus drivers and give generously on 22 October.
Now, I know very little about autism, except that it exists as a "disorder" on a "spectrum", which suggests to my occasionally cynical non-medical mind that those who are charged with treating it (or, perhaps I should say, those who charge for treating it) haven't got a clue what it really is but are nonetheless certain that it is a medical condition rather than, say, a psychological one brought about largely by the very fact of having parents.
My own diagnosis would be that autism and ADD (plus its offshoot ADHD – are there any others yet?) are very rarely found in orphans or those fortunate enough to have been brought up by nannies. But I digress.
It was the "intellectual disabilities" bit that interested me most. I've noticed that this formulation has been gaining ground at the expense of "mentally handicapped", which is a pity, in my opinion, as "mentally handicapped" has a nice ring to it and is easily abbreviated to Mencap. What old Brian Rix makes of all this, with the charity he made famous facing the grisly prospect of being re-abbreviated to Telebil is anyone's guess.
I met one of those persons who may be benefiting from this year's fundraising on Tai Po Road this morning. We actually met in the Route 81 bus stop lay-by after he'd decided to move from the inside lane to the outside one without looking.
"But I indicated!" he offered rather feebly as he passed over the necessaries for touching up the paintwork above my nearside rear wheel.
"Yes, but you're meant to do that before you change lanes," I thought to myself – such wisdom is wasted on a MVP driver, "and even then it's a precondition for moving rather than sanction for doing so."
So, spare a thought for intellectually challenged Lexus drivers and give generously on 22 October.
4 comments:
Well done for getting the other party to settle on the spot. As soon as money is mentioned, in my experience he or she will call the police safe in the knowledge that in the absence of witnesses no conviction will be obtained even if the matter finally goes to court.
I'd always recommend settling in HK - even if that settlement invloves no money changing hands - if the damage is not too extensive and if no one else is involved.
A friend thought he had a cast-iron case against a lorry driver and took time off to attend court only to hear the magistrate find neither party liable because there were no witnesses.
The same goes for the majority of side-impact accidents. In more than 15 years driving here, the only case I took all the way (and eventually received the costs in full - after 2 years) was when a lorry rear-ended me. No wheedling out of that one by lying in court.
If the fault was so clear cut, I assume that one was a police prosecution.
Indeed. I didn’t need to attend court at all. Just the small claims tribunal, as I recall. My insurers urged me to accept 80% of the costs, but I said “No way” and doggedness was duly rewarded.
Post a Comment