Domitianus

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is that not a double negative Steve? > > I had them too yesterday evening. I thought the > swine flu line was pretty desperate but in > hindsight more vulnerable people may be > frightened or worried by this. No double negative that I can see!

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't find either of your posts convincing or > > relevant in any way. With regard to the > > corruption you refer to in the Lawrence case, > it > > seems as if the corruption was designed to > PROTECT > > a guilty party, not frame someone. > > It is still relevant. If the kid's father is a > protected drug dealer or a corrupt copper, where > does that leave the witness? Hint: not in a good > place. > > > My reference > > to the Lawrence case was designed to illustrate > > that, in that case anyway, those who were happy > to > > lark around pretending to stab people were also > > happy enough to do so in real life. > > If you want something serious to worry about: how > about all the young men who have been trained by > the authorities to kill with a single stab to the > heart and then traumatised in the battle fields of > Iraq and Afghanistan before being dumped back into > society? > > > Sure they > > weren't convicted, innocent until proven guilty > > and all that, but I doubt there are many who > > really believe that Norris et al weren't guilty > as > > sin. I don't think that the Met have ever > > seriously considered any other possible > suspects. > > You appear to have one interpretation of the law > when it suits you and another when it doesn't. > > > and running around > > with knives is just a normal thing that kids > do, > > It was normal in my youth - the current anomaly is > an epidemic of related crimes. We didn?t have > that. > > > then what on earth was the point of your > OP????? > > Were you really struck with "horror" just > because > > these lads were vandalising a wheelie-bin???? > > Your indignation, as it came across anyway, > seemed > > to be as much to do with the fact that these > > youths were flashing blades around in public! > > They were doing it in plain view, stopped to let > me pass then carried on again. That suggested to > me that they did not think they were doing > anything wrong. It's not the kids' actions that > horrified me so much (in retrospect), it's what > their behaviour says about the state of our > society - a point I've already made in earlier > posts. > > However, regarding the legality, if they had been > practicing in their own backyards, even with > 12-inch butchers' knives, it would have been > perfectly legal. Since you have either missed or deliberately misinterpreted all my points I don't think I'll bother re-iterating or clarifying any of them, save to point out your own blatant contradictions. You say that kids carrying knives was normal in your day, that these kids seem to think their behaviour normal, that their behaviour DIDN'T horrify you in retrospect - yet you then go on to suggest that all this 'normal', 'non-horrifying' behaviour says something terrible abut the state of our society?????? What exactly does it say, if it is so normal and not horrifying at all? And if you want us to worry about the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, then start a thread about tha subject, not one about such "normal" behaviour as kids running around with knives. And "...trained by the authorities to kill with a single stab to the heart..."? I think you have been reading too many Andy McNabb novels.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > > But if you had pulled your finger out at the > time > > the cops might have come round to catch them in > > the act thereby obviating any risk of mistaken > > identity. > > At the time, I wasn't aware that an offence might > have been committed (I didn't know about the > recent change in the law regarding knives). > However, I'm still not convinced that any crime > was committed after reading the relevant law (as > cited in a previous post). > > The distinction whereby a 3 inch blade is legal > but a 3.25 inch blade isn't seems arbitrary and, > frankly, ridiculous. > > > How would you feel... > > I've no problem. My conscience is clear. In my > youth, most of my peers carried knives and knew > how to use them. But we also knew not to run > around stabbing wheelie bins in broad daylight. I don't find either of your posts convincing or relevant in any way. With regard to the corruption you refer to in the Lawrence case, it seems as if the corruption was designed to PROTECT a guilty party, not frame someone. My reference to the Lawrence case was designed to illustrate that, in that case anyway, those who were happy to lark around pretending to stab people were also happy enough to do so in real life. Sure they weren't convicted, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but I doubt there are many who really believe that Norris et al weren't guilty as sin. I don't think that the Met have ever seriously considered any other possible suspects. And if your conscience is clear and running around with knives is just a normal thing that kids do, then what on earth was the point of your OP????? Were you really struck with "horror" just because these lads were vandalising a wheelie-bin???? Your indignation, as it came across anyway, seemed to be as much to do with the fact that these youths were flashing blades around in public!

Yeah, and my brother had a Fairnbarn Sykes commando dagger which he accidentally managed to poke in my younger brother's face. And a friend of mine was witness to a murder where a friend of hers, after a silly argument over a girl, was stabbed in the chest. And when the assailant realised the victim was still alive he went back and stuck his knife up the guys's nose into his brain, leaving my friend, deeply traumatised, holding her friend's head as he bled to death in her arms. So we all have stories. Fact is, when you and I were lads, mucking about with knives probably wasn't illegal - it is now! And since the OP was clearly worried about the activities of the lads in question and thought it alarming, rather than a bit of innocent fun, the obvious question is "why didn't he report it?" My point is that the argument about a corrupt police forces framing and ruining the lives of innocent individuals doesn't add up as any type of reasonable answer to that question.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Matt: the point I'm making is that I cannot > > positively identify the two boys in question. > The > > risks of letting loose the dogs of law on that > > basis are too great given the frequency of > > miscarriages within our criminal justice > system. > > > > More importantly, how can kids go through what > is > > supposed to be one of the finest education > systems > > in the world and still not know the difference > > between right and wrong? Someone has screwed up > > big time, and it isn?t those kids. > > > But if you had pulled your finger out at the time > the cops might have come round to catch them in > the act thereby obviating any risk of mistaken > identity. The notion that we shouldn't report > crimes on the basis that there have been > miscarriages of justice in the past is, if > accepted, a reason NEVER to report ANY sort of > crime EVER!!!! Is that a productive policy? I > think not. > > And, whilst my respect for the police is seriously > compromised, I think you grossly exagerrate the > potential outcomes for these lads. I believe that > any convictions whilst a juvenile are formally > "sealed" once they reach the age of majority in > order to prevent exacxtly what you foresee. > > Let me, however, get out my crystal ball and tell > you what I see. A couple of young lads are > running round practicing their 'stabbing' moves on > an inanimate object. They are allowed to do so, > even when noticed by an adult who goes onto a > local bulletin board - all 'shock/horror but I did > nothing!' They get into a bit of a fight with > some other lads their own age and, with the red > mist descending, out come the knives for a bit of > show. The other guys don't back down, ego becomes > involved, the situation escalates and we see a > bunch of kids stabbing each other in broad > daylight - JUST LIKE HAPPENED ON LL A COUPLE OF > WEEKS AGO!!!!!! > > How would you feel HAL9000 if somewthing like that > happened and the photos of the kids arrested for a > fatal stabbing bear a stunning resemblance to the > kids you didn't want to grass up to the Evil Old > Bill? Or if you were called to do Jury Service, > the case was a stabbing and there the little > buggers were sitting in the dock? And white youths practicing their stabbing moves reminds me very much of the secret film of the suspects in the Steven Lawrence case whilst they were in custody.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Matt: the point I'm making is that I cannot > positively identify the two boys in question. The > risks of letting loose the dogs of law on that > basis are too great given the frequency of > miscarriages within our criminal justice system. > > More importantly, how can kids go through what is > supposed to be one of the finest education systems > in the world and still not know the difference > between right and wrong? Someone has screwed up > big time, and it isn?t those kids. But if you had pulled your finger out at the time the cops might have come round to catch them in the act thereby obviating any risk of mistaken identity. The notion that we shouldn't report crimes on the basis that there have been miscarriages of justice in the past is, if accepted, a reason NEVER to report ANY sort of crime EVER!!!! Is that a productive policy? I think not. And, whilst my respect for the police is seriously compromised, I think you grossly exagerrate the potential outcomes for these lads. I believe that any convictions whilst a juvenile are formally "sealed" once they reach the age of majority in order to prevent exacxtly what you foresee. Let me, however, get out my crystal ball and tell you what I see. A couple of young lads are running round practicing their 'stabbing' moves on an inanimate object. They are allowed to do so, even when noticed by an adult who goes onto a local bulletin board - all 'shock/horror but I did nothing!' They get into a bit of a fight with some other lads their own age and, with the red mist descending, out come the knives for a bit of show. The other guys don't back down, ego becomes involved, the situation escalates and we see a bunch of kids stabbing each other in broad daylight - JUST LIKE HAPPENED ON LL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO!!!!!! How would you feel HAL9000 if somewthing like that happened and the photos of the kids arrested for a fatal stabbing bear a stunning resemblance to the kids you didn't want to grass up to the Evil Old Bill? Or if you were called to do Jury Service, the case was a stabbing and there the little buggers were sitting in the dock?

I recommend that all women wear extensively underwired bras when venturing out in weather like this!

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > parsnip-io Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > KalamityKel Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Ive always found it quite boring, about other > > > parts of the borough and out of date > > > > > > What's wrong with finding out about other parts > of > > the borough? There's a whole life universe > > outside of the warm, fuzzy ED bubble you > know... > > May I suggest you dont stereotype EDF users to > only be interested in East Dulwich and East > Dulwich only. I just don't happen to find reading > continuously of news and events on the further > side of the borough particularly interesting. > Give us news of Peckham, Elephant etc rather than > Surrey Quays and the likes too tis all I'm saying. 'Tis true.

Maybe they were pretending it was Bin Laden?

It is a special seat for the Inspector or a Security Guard to prevent violent 15 y'o's getting on.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sainsbury's parking tickets have the same status > as any other privately issued ticket. i.e. None, > unless you are pay up 'cause you don't know > better. Which is bad - maybe the council wardens > should be given powers to issue tickets for > disabled bays on private land? > > Sophiesofa: the pregnant/porky conundrum haunts > me. Giving up my seat to someone who needs it > more than me (whether old, injured, pregnant) puts > a spring in my step for hours. But there's no way > to play safe on the pregnant/porky conundrum. If > she's not pregnant, she knows why you've given up > your seat. > > So, those who are expecting: ask with a smile and > you will receive your seat with a smile in return! Just had a thought. If council wardens were to issue tickets for parking offences on private land, where would the fines go - the council or the land-owner? I for one would be a little hacked off at the council using private land to generate public sector revenue.

Let me ask a controversial question (or perhaps not controversial). In light of the black-on-black mass stabbing a couple of weeks ago on LL, would people's responses to this thread be different if the boys stabbing the bin were black?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sainsbury's parking tickets have the same status > as any other privately issued ticket. i.e. None, > unless you are pay up 'cause you don't know > better. Which is bad - maybe the council wardens > should be given powers to issue tickets for > disabled bays on private land? > > Sophiesofa: the pregnant/porky conundrum haunts > me. Giving up my seat to someone who needs it > more than me (whether old, injured, pregnant) puts > a spring in my step for hours. But there's no way > to play safe on the pregnant/porky conundrum. If > she's not pregnant, she knows why you've given up > your seat. > > So, those who are expecting: ask with a smile and > you will receive your seat with a smile in return! Thought as much (about the parking tickets that is). ANd for those who feel duty bound to pay a ticket no matter who the issuer is, but feel that it has been unjustly issued, is there an appeals process?

What is the meaning or status of these Sainsbury's issued 'tickets'? Are they meant to embarrass? Cause hassle getting them off? Are they a fine? Are they legally enforcable?

This morning I was woken at 5am by Old Nick himself dancing on the roof of my house. He said he had lost his black cat and his trident had been confiscated by the police leaving him afraid to walk the streets on his own. He asked to come in for a cup of tea and wanted to borrow a bus fare back to Hades. He might have been genuine but I had my doubts - something about his eyes. Has he called on anyone else on Barry Road?

Do cycling helmets really cover the ears leaving the wearer unable to hear?

Muley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus wrote > > > You're talking about parent & child parking spaces > a bit closer to the entrance. Is that immoral? > Illegal? Do you really feel your self > discriminated against? > > Did you just mention 'making a mountain out of a > molehill?' > > > > Tricky one. What's Station Manager Barrys take on > that? Immoral? It is certainly discriminatory and many people would feel that any form of discrimination (no matter how insignificant) is immoral. If the positions were reversed, (as I have suggested and no one has commented on), and it was some other group that was being advantaged or disadvantaged (blacks, Asians, Chinese, gay/lesbians, women etc etc) would your attitude be so casual? Would you dismiss this matter as being trivial and unworthy of notice? I very much doubt it! Illegal? Possibly, depending, as I said earlier, upon whether discrimination on grounds of marital/family status is unlawful. If it is, then yes the issue in question may well be illegal. Again whether or not it is a minor matter is irrelevant as to its illegality. Minor unlawful discrimination is still unlawful discrimination and again, if positions were reversed and it was some other group being discriminated against or advantaged (see earlier list for examples) I doubt that anyone would be impressed by the argument "Yes, it is unlawful discrimination but only on a very minor issue. Why are these pesky Jews/gypsies/blacks/Asians/women/gays getting so worked up?" On the contrary, I imagine a great many people on this forum would be signing petitions, organising boycotts and writing letters to their MPs to show how PC they are. I imagine the attitude of such parties is that if you are a member of a more 'priviledged' or 'advantaged' section of society, of course, it seems ok for you to be discriminated against from time to time as I guess you derserve it. Do I feel myself discriminated against? If services are being provided to a group of Sainsbury's customers based solely upon criteria such as family/marital status then it is beyond question that others ARE being discriminated against. Discrimination by definition is the process of making disctinctions and offering different opportunity accordingly. This is not a matter for debate. I assume your question is - do I really give a s**t and is it harming my life. In answer to the second question - no as I don't drive in London anyway. In answer to the first - yes! As a matter of principle I do object to discrimination against any party even if they are perceived to be part of group that can 'take it' from time to time. "Mountains out of molehills"? Let me quote you a couple of other colloquialisms - "thin end of the wedge". "Give an inch and they will take a mile". And I wonder, if it was any other ethnic or social groups who was being disadvantaged in this manner, whether you would consider things so trivial. I doubt it. Small acts of discrimination pave the way for further, more pervasive acts and any group that sits by and watches others discriminated against (no matter how trivially) may find that few voices will be raised in their support if they in turn are on the receiving end. Could I also point out that it was not I who initiated this discussion or debate so I assume that you will be applying your comments equally to the numerous other contributors who seem to have fund this matter of significant enough importance to generate an extensive discussion.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > but out of interest, do you really think that > > > having a dog and having a child are > comparable? > > > > > > I was just wondering which wally would leap in > > with the "Domi is saying that chilren are the > same > > as dogs!" interpretation. It was inevitable > that > > some tube would do so. I guess you have > answered > > the question for us. Anyone who can even > orignate > > such a daft interpretation is in no position to > > call me "hard of understanding." > > except that i didn't suggest that you said > 'children are the same as dogs' i said you > compared having a dog to having a child (please > see above) - can you understand that there is a > difference? > > and you did in fact compare having a dog to having > a child, so perhaps you even struggle to > understand yourself? If you are incapable of understanding the notion of introducing an analogy or parallel situation for the purposes of clarifying or examining a common underlying principle then it is clear you need to go bac to Introductory Logical Argument 101. It is a common rhetorical tool for examining the logical structure of a position, i.e. would the principle being put forward still hold water if it was examined in the context of a different but isomorphic situation.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr Anus > > The internet is good for two things: the exchange > of information of interest between a tiny number > of people who can't punch one another and spleen > venting. You have combined both magnificently and > I salute you. The dog/child comparison deserves > respect, awe, and surrender. > > So I for one am happy to concede that the moral > case for parent parking is weak and that driving > in a car park is a cinch. Mr Woof has though > nailed the reason it exists: market forces. And > only a hippy would argue against the morality of > that. As I have already acknowledged, if it is market forces then state that openly (as YOU have done). A signifiant part of my "spleen" has been reserved for those who have tried to proffer an absurd "safety" argument. I would point out, however, that "market forces" are not invariably accepted in our society as justification for differential treatment. E.g, if I refused to employ a woman who stated her intention of having children at some stage, I doubt an employment tribunal or society at large would view me with any great sympathy if I cited "market forces" and the need to have a full-time, 100% committed staff who wouldn't be seeking lengthy period of maternity leave at some time in the future. No matter how persuasively and accurately I made a "market forces" case, it would not be accepted as an excuse for discrimination for one moment. And what would be the popular opinion if I decided to force Romanian gypsies, for example, to park further from my shop than white, middle class, Anglo-Saxon shoppers on the grounds that the latter tend to be more affluent and are more welcome as customers? And what would happen do you think if I offered special treatment to homosexual customers on the grounds that the power of the "pink pound" makes them more desirable customers. What would those with gaggles of their children acting as mute testimony to their heterosexuality have to say then, I wonder? I suspect they might feel a little aggrieved. When I worked in the public sector (Civil Service), discrimination against any individual or preferential treatment of anyone on the grounds of marital or family status was completely banned. This meant that 'term time' working provisions (originally designed as a 'family friendly' measure) HAD TO BE equally accessible to single staff or those without children. I don't know if that was due to internal regulation alone or whether it reflected statutory regulation. If the latter, Sainsburys could be on a sticky wicket if they are shown to discriminte against those without children. Discrimination against a great many groups could be explained via market forces. That does not justify it morally or in the eyes of the law. It is remarkabl how many people are willing to turn a blind eye to discrimination or accuse those who object to it of making mountains out of molehills, when they are the beneficiaries of said discrimination.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > A little more skill in constructing your > sentences > > would not be amiss and would make your point > > clearer. > > i'll try to be more considerate to the hard of > understanding in the future > > i used to not be a parent myself and never felt > any of the anger/bitterness/victimisation that you > seem to, i certainly didn't feel hard done by that > i couldn't park in the special parking places (i > seldom do even now that i can). > > why is this? > > i guess that i'm just more tolerant, less uptight > and would rather just get on with things than moan > (on and on) about how i was suffering so that > others could do what people have always done and > always will do > > but out of interest, do you really think that > having a dog and having a child are comparable? I was just wondering which wally would leap in with the "Domi is saying that chilren are the same as dogs!" interpretation. It was inevitable that some tube would do so. I guess you have answered the question for us. Anyone who can even orignate such a daft interpretation is in no position to call me "hard of understanding."

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I mean > > if I bought a flipping DOG I would realise that > it > > might cramp my style a little! And if I took > it > > to a car-park and took it out of a car I would > > expect to be required to control it and put it > on > > a lead so as not to get knocked down. I would > NOT > > expect special parking spaces for people with > > dogs! There seems, however, on some parts, to > be > > an expectation that having children with one > > confers some instant priviledged status and > that > > lesser mortals (those without said sprogs) > should > > scurry into the gutter/cross the road/avert > their > > eyes/bow three times/put up with restricted > > parking opportunities/patiently endure the > > atrocious behavior of rowdy four year olds etc > > etc, in order to smooth the regal passage of > those > > with progeny. Guess what? I aint gonna do it. > > > > And it seems that the previous generations > managed > > to successfully raise robust, healthy and > > resourceful children without expecting everyone > > else to play second class citizen in order for > > them to do so. If you are taking your children > > shopping/into a car park/out on the street - > HOLD > > THEIR B****Y HANDS! It is called PARENTAL > > RESPONSIBILITY, unpopular as that term might be. > > > In the words of a certain boxer (name I can't > > remember) who was questioned on whether in his > > private life he was setting a good example as a > > role model - "It ain't my job to raise your > > children." > > __________________________________________________ > _____________________________ > > Domitianus > > You have really missed the obvious. It's quite > simple Ok, I have 2 young boys so when I go to > shop I buy for 4 people each & every time, week in > week out , plus Christmas presents ,birthdays & > their friends Birthdays & clothes for our boys and > our friends boys, plus all the parties & picnics > ohh the list and occasions just grow. > So quite rightly the big supermarkets just love us > & our friends & our friends friends, in fact we > are GOLD star customers, top of the pecking order > , they cant do enough for us and quite bloody > rightly so. > We do & will spend more money than those who > choose not to have kids. If you can't see the > sound business decision a company makes by > offering US the premium parking & preferential > conditions then look a little harder, beyond your > frothy coffee & salad for one. Those bays are > wider so we can open all the doors to our massive > people carriers & get all our purchases in, Lord > have you not figured that one out yet,in purchase > land you are out classed and out maneuvered, & out > in the cold. > > > BRRrr shut the door after you. > > > FCOL > > > W**F Then stop blethering on bout "safety" and accept it is crass commercialism. And how do you know even without children I don't massively outspend you due to my consderable wealth?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure you could. But that wouldn't be at all > relevant would it. > > What these incidents show is that car parks are > dangerous. And intuitively you know that to be > right don't you. Lots of nooks and crannies for > children to suddenly appear out of, cars > performing complex manouevres, stressed parents > struggling with wayward trollies and children. > > But not as dangerous as sword swallowing, I'll > give you that. Complex manouevres???? Like what? Hand-brake turns? Double de-clutching? Or are we talking normal stuff like driving forward, reversing, turning left and right................all at very low speed? Furthermore, since car-parks are also traversed by pedestrians any responsible driver in a car park will be particularly alert for them. If you find anything that you are required to do in a car-park "complex" you should hand in your driving licence and take the bus.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Domitianus Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents > > didn't > > > > expect the world to be turned on its head > to > > > > accomodate that choice. I think they had > > > > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate > > that, > > > > kids or not, they would prolly have to use > > the > > > > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you > > > know > > > > what, they raised three sons without any of > > us > > > > getting trapped in cars whose doors they > > > couldn't > > > > open fully or having us turned into > > strawberry > > > jam > > > > after having to walk the length of urselves > > > > through a car-park. By God, we were > > sometimes > > > > even allowed to cross busy roads by > > ourselves. > > > > > > what point are you actually making here? > > > > > > is the world on it's head? and because you > > can't > > > park in the place closest to the supermarket? > > what > > > other unreasonable adjustments has society > made > > > when trying to be considerate to other that > > have > > > turned it on it's head? (and when it was on > > it's > > > feet were those without children rightly the > > > priority?) > > > > > > was the world a better place when you were a > > > child? > > > > > > What point am I makijng? What point are you > > making? I don't understand a word of this > post. > > i wasn't making a point, merely trying to > understand if you were - hence the question 'what > point are you making?' a question that you now say > that you don't understand, so i guess i'll give up > and assume that you don't know what, if any, point > you were making > > the world on it's head bit is in relation to the > bit in now in bold above where you imply that the > world is now on it's head and that this somehow > relates to parent and child parking spaces > > it's not hard you know A little more skill in constructing your sentences would not be amiss and would make your point clearer. MY point is that if people chose to make the decision to have children then they can hardly expect preferential treatment in every circumstance, as seems to be happening in a great many situations in society. The one in question is that people are being given preferential parking opportunities simply because they have children in tow. Inevitably this will disadvantage those who do NOT have children. The reasons that have been put forward to justify such preferential parking, eg. safety concerns; seem quite spurious. If people chose to make decisions about their life, such as having children, then they should have the nouse to understand that from time to time this decision will have consequences that are a little inconvenient (they might have to carry their children certain distances, they might occasionally struggle to get them in and out of the car, they might not be able to sit in local pubs til 8pm with their new-born etc etc). I mean if I bought a flipping DOG I would realise that it might cramp my style a little! And if I took it to a car-park and took it out of a car I would expect to be required to control it and put it on a lead so as not to get knocked down. I would NOT expect special parking spaces for people with dogs! There seems, however, on some parts, to be an expectation that having children with one confers some instant priviledged status and that lesser mortals (those without said sprogs) should scurry into the gutter/cross the road/avert their eyes/bow three times/put up with restricted parking opportunities/patiently endure the atrocious behavior of rowdy four year olds etc etc, in order to smooth the regal passage of those with progeny. Guess what? I aint gonna do it. And it seems that the previous generations managed to successfully raise robust, healthy and resourceful children without expecting everyone else to play second class citizen in order for them to do so. If you are taking your children shopping/into a car park/out on the street - HOLD THEIR B****Y HANDS! It is called PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, unpopular as that term might be. In the words of a certain boxer (name I can't remember) who was questioned on whether in his private life he was setting a good example as a role model - "It ain't my job to raise your children."

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents didn't > > expect the world to be turned on its head to > > accomodate that choice. I think they had > > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate that, > > kids or not, they would prolly have to use the > > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you > know > > what, they raised three sons without any of us > > getting trapped in cars whose doors they > couldn't > > open fully or having us turned into strawberry > jam > > after having to walk the length of urselves > > through a car-park. By God, we were sometimes > > even allowed to cross busy roads by ourselves. > > what point are you actually making here? > > is the world on it's head? and because you can't > park in the place closest to the supermarket? what > other unreasonable adjustments has society made > when trying to be considerate to other that have > turned it on it's head? (and when it was on it's > feet were those without children rightly the > priority?) > > was the world a better place when you were a > child? What point am I makijng? What point are you making? I don't understand a word of this post.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason they are close to the store is because > car parks are quite dangerous for people who dont > actually reach the hight of the windows of cars. > Also Sainsburys chose a more dangerous layout for > their car park than they had to. What is this "more dangerous layout"? Minefields? Snake pits? Swinging floors, carefully positioned on a fulcrum so that once you pass the centre of gravity - down you go? Hot geysers? Chained tigers hidden under trapdoors like in Gladiator And why did Sainsburys choose to design something so perilous when they didnt have to? Was it a frenzy of reklessness by a deranged designer who mollified his guilt by saying "I can always put family parking bays close to the door so at least the ickle children don't get hurt!" I think have a right to know.