83,013
edits
Iatrogenic: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Now here’s the thing. Coaching [[cricket]] is thankless, in every possible way. You are not paid for it. You certainly don’t grow rich from it — except spiritually, of course. You do it out of the goodness of your heart, a vague sense of moral obligation to the forthcoming generation, and a forlorn hope that the little ingrates might grow to love the game, which is a wonderful diversion from the encroaching enormity of growing old. | Now here’s the thing. Coaching [[cricket]] is thankless, in every possible way. You are not paid for it. You certainly don’t grow rich from it — except spiritually, of course. You do it out of the goodness of your heart, a vague sense of moral obligation to the forthcoming generation, and a forlorn hope that the little ingrates might grow to love the game, which is a wonderful diversion from the encroaching enormity of growing old. | ||
So any parent who gets a Sunday morning lie-in while you stand in a wind-swept field explaining the rudiments of the back-foot drive to little Horatio and has civil [[litigation]] uppermost in his mind, over the social betterment of junior, will rot in hell. He should be ''grateful'', as a default disposition towards Horatio’s minders, rather than opportunistically extortionate.<ref>He won’t be, of course — that’s just the cruel reality of the human condition for you — but he ''should''.</ref> | |||
Yet, [[cricket]] is a perilous pastime. 5½ oz of cork flies about at a decent lick. If junior sprains his ankle, gets run over or cops a short one to the temple, then (a) that will do him the world of good, long term, and (b) unless you, coach, are some kind of pederast or have been egregiously delinquent in supervising Horatio’s backfoot technique, adequately socialised parents — even a neurotic North London ones — will shrug shoulders and figure that’s the price of being a lazy sod and letting other people look after their kids. Will they ''sue'' you? Of course not. For one thing, you are probably on the bones of your arse, and what judge is going to be in punitive frame of mind when considering a well-intended volunteer doing his best to look after someone else’s brat? | |||
All that might change if you benefit from public liability insurance. Suddenly ''yours'' isn’t the pocket helicopter dad is going after. It is worth a claim. Insurer is likely to refuse the claim — that’s the business model for many of them — but it will still put its premiums up because of the assessed dereliction of obligation of the insured. Your own membership mght only go up a fiver, but the insurance company is ''creaming it''. | All that might change if you benefit from public liability insurance. Suddenly ''yours'' isn’t the pocket helicopter dad is going after. It is worth a claim. Insurer is likely to refuse the claim — that’s the business model for many of them — but it will still put its premiums up because of the assessed dereliction of obligation of the insured. Your own membership mght only go up a fiver, but the insurance company is ''creaming it''. | ||