Damian H

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The fundamental difference is that no-one who > goes > > to use the wifi attempts to prevent other > people > > using the same space for their different > purposes. > > They wish to share the space for different > > purposes. > > > > In the case of larger parking spaces, however, > one > > group wishes to use them exclusively and > prevent > > any other group having use of them - read back > to > > the opening post, for heaven's sake!!! > > > These wifi users take the best spot in the cafe > from the moment it opens and sit there all day, so > I can't sit in my favourite seat and have a > coffee. > > Get a grip! Frankly, I am nor sure how tight your grip is. You are effectively objecting to a first come-first served consequence. Well I have no objection to that - let's apply it to the bigger parking spaces as well. Re trolling behaviour - if you think I am a troll, then why are any of you engaging in this discussion?

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am pointing out that the provision of such a > service as wifi is designed to facilitate a > certain group of customers and is used by them for > that purpose > > Quite, as are the parent & child parking spaces. The fundamental difference is that no-one who goes to use the wifi attempts to prevent other people using the same space for their different purposes. They wish to share the space for different purposes. In the case of larger parking spaces, however, one group wishes to use them exclusively and prevent any other group having use of them - read back to the opening post, for heaven's sake!!!

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > srisky Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Gosh, since I am a stay at home mum and go to > > the > > > local cafes to meet my friends with children, > I > > > hadn't actually stopped to think that some of > > the > > > people there working on laptops and taking > > > advantage of the free Wi-fi (clearly not > > supplied > > > for the benefit of toddlers) may actually be > > > hard-working self employed people who find it > > > extremely difficult to focus when my two year > > old > > > is screaming because I am ignoring him or is > > > repeatedly banging his Tommy Tiptree mug on > the > > > table." > > > > > > If you 'chose' to work in a public place > (other > > > than the library) then I don't think you can > > > complain about the noise from other patrons. > I > > > appreciate not everyone can afford to have > the > > > internet at home but that's another topic. > > > > So if I decided to stick my iphone on speaker > and > > blast out a bit of hip-hop no-one would be > > entitled to ask me to turn it down or off? > After > > all, if someone goes to a cafe or bar and > everyone > > is entitled to act with complete disregard for > > others there is no reason why I should not play > > mymusic if I want to. > > > Your arguments are becoming more irrational. > > A patron using the free wifi in a cafe can not > expect others to quieten down, because they want > to concentrate on their own work - it doesn't > matter if they are a a group of adults having a > lively discussion, mums with babies, teenagers > listening to the latest tracks on their iphone. > > As just commented, the free wifi is a marketing > gimick deisgned to lure such patrons into the > establishments. If the establishment had a > quiet/child-free area then I am sure most parents > would not take their children in there, nor would > they have cause to complain if they were asked to > leave that section. The child-free section in the > Dulwich Park cafe is respected as such. > > The parent & child parking in Sainsbury's may well > be a marketing ploy, just like the free wifi. Why > can't it be left to those with young children, in > a similar way that those with children do not go > into child-free areas? > > It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be > annoyed if a designanted area is being used by > someone for who it's not intended. Of course, > there is a sense of entitlement - just like those > in a child-free area are entitled to use it > without children being there. > > Have you considered getting riled up about the > family swimming sessions? Women only swim > sessions? Silver swim sessions? > > People of different ages and different abilities > need adaptations in society for their own safety, > well being and, where possible, comfort. And why > not the latter, if it's not at the detriment of > others? If parents are offered a slightly wider > parking space, if it's near the entrance, why does > it really matter to you? If it helps them to get > young children safely in/out of their cars and > through the car park, then so be it. I'd > understand your argument if parking spaces were > few and far between or they decided replace all > the disabled parking spots with parent/child > parking. > > It appears that some people seem to think that > children are a nuisance (should be seen and not > heard), which is a real shame. If society looks > after them then they will become the adults that > you would want looking after you in your old age. The fact that you cannot follow an argument is a reflection on ou, not a lack of rationale in my argument. I have not suggested that everyone quieten down in order to let people work on their laptops. I am pointing out that the provision of such a service as wifi is designed to facilitate a certain group of customers and is used by them for that purpose. Their needs and requirements are entitled to be balanced and respected just as much as those of other people using the venue. To expect that to be to the extent of creating a library like hush is clearly excessive and not proportionate. However, to completely disregard their needs (as is often done by those who treat such places as a nursery and show no consideration to other users such as those trying to do a bit of work) is equally unacceptable. What you seem to be unable to grasp in your attempt to perceive only complete polarities, is that I am advocating a balance that accomodates the needs and comforts of all the groups using public spaces. I am saying that this often simply does not happen in a number of local venues due to the refusal of parents to consider the needs of other users. A certain group views their needs (often merely whims)as being paramount and ignore whether they are preventing other users of amenities and facilities geting their needs met. My analogy is that allowing children to run riot, have tantrums, play noisily with toys and cutlery etc (when if said parents took a moment to look around them and see how it affects others) is as selfish and inconsiderate as someone sitting in such a venue and playing their music loudly to the detriment and constenation of others. It is quite simply pig ignorant and ill-mannered. Re women only gym sessions - I am opposed to them unless similar provision would be made for male patrons. Effectively if a local leisure centre ran a woman-only day once a week, male tax and rate payers ould be paying exactly the same contribution for only 85% of the service. There is a term for such a thing - gender discrimination - and when it happens to the disadvantage of women it is generallyconsidered a 'bad thing'.

Amoeba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "(I have no particular expectations of any group). > I assume this is aside from those you have laid > out in previous posts. Identify them. At best the only thing that could be qualified as an 'expectation' is that people should be mindful and considerate of others that share the same local space and amenities. If such an 'expectation' is perceived by you as being an unreasonable imposition of a world view there is somehting very wrong.

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking > > where you like on their property? You are > entitled > > to park anywhere and ignore their wishes. > Anyone > > who suggests otherwise is self centred and has > a > > terrible sense of entitlement. > > > Er, it's their property. It's just like asking > people to take their shoes off when they come into > your house. > > Or was this an ironic post. I am losing track. > > Damian H - I thought this was amusing to start > with. The level of emotion, thought and anger > invested in your posts compared to the relatively > trivial issue at hand could have been scripted by > Larry David. But there is a point where > self-righteous rage at double buggies getting in > your way stops being amusing turns into sociopathy > and I think you've crossed that line. Seriously, > go back and read your posts and consider whether > they are the thoughts of a sane man with a grip on > reality. Timster, I have read all of my posts and am well aware of the mood when I wrote them. You clearly were not and are halluinating anger when you read what I have said. I am amused by your objection that my posts show "thought" - I would have thought that a commendable trait in advancing any opinion. If you perceive sociopathy you clearly have absolutely no knowledge of what the word actually means in any shape or form. Perhaps your contribution would benefit from further "thought". If you detect frustration you are quite correct. The issues at hand here are not new and have been rehearsed at length bymany people in historic threads I am also struck by the fact that you choose not to comment on any other posters here, despite the fact that their posts most certainly HAVE refelcted anger, insults, rudeness and an attempt to intimidate and harrass another poster on the forum. Why do you single out my reasoned and carefully elaborated posts and not address the offensive behaviour of others at all? There is also an old adagae that it takes two to tango. If this thread has continued and I have posted in defence of my position and the repeated personal attacks and insults thrown at me have you perhaps considered that it may be due to the fact that others have perpetuated this issue? Your one-sidedness in your comments is very striking indeed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So taking a space reserved for parents with > children, when you have none, is not an > inconsiderate act but justifiable revenge for the > perceived selfishness of (all?) parents. Or is it > righteous justice for someone failing to thank you > for holding a door open? I never realised that > taking a parking space that is a little closer to > the supermarket was a political act, but I?m > starting to see it now.... SInce I dont have a car and do not engage in such a specific act I cannot know the precise motives of those who do. However, I am pointing out that if people are not always incline to respect such requests it may to some extent be related to irritation about the self-entitled attitude exhibited by the priviledged group in general. If you want to take specific acts completely out of the context in which they occur that is up to you, but a systemic perspective often shines light on matters with a greater degree of illumination. If there are those without children who put up with unboundaried and selfish behaviour out and about in other parts of ED, they might well be inclined to say "sod that, they want the parking spcaes as well?" when they see 'family' parking spaces in car parks and choose to make a point. WHether that is a grand political protest as you describe (unlikely) or just a spontaneous display of pique and frustration in the heat of the moment makes very little difference to the end resul.

Amoeba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H, since the parking spaces are just one of > seemingly many manifestations of the "whingeing > entitlement" that you are so keen to whinge about, > why not start up a new thread along the lines of > "All those with children think they are better > than me, but actually I'm better than them". You > could include your top 10 things that others do or > stand for which you, of course, are too good a > person not to. Perhaps then we could really get > to the bottom of your issue with people who do not > live how you want them to, or perhaps benefit from > something that you are not able to benefit from. > > Whilst I am all in favour of "live and let live", > you do rather come across as "live and let live on > my terms" which is considerably less appealing. > > As for the parent and child spaces, for whatever > the reason, they are as they are and so should be > respected as such. If you have a problem with > them, talk to Sainsbury's. If you have a problem > with the sense of entitlement that parents have > when it comes to using them....don't. Of course > they feel entitled, they are parent and child > spaces. Amoeba, your post is uninentionally hilarious. Unlike Indiana I will actually tell you why I find it so funny. You have COMPLETELY inverted the situation and accused me of doing what I am objecting to others doing. I have not attempted to tell others people how to live at all. On the contrary I have poined out that there is a prevalent group of people in ED who insist on behaving selfishly in the manner that THEY choose, who expect to have the right to extend their own living and kindergarten space out into the local community and act in it with absolutely no consideration for the effect that such behaviour has on other users of local amenities and facilities. When the impact that their unboundaried behaviour has on the comfort, opportunities and enjoyment of other people they share the space with is pointred out to them, they respond with indigantion and arrogance that their ability to do what they d**n well please wherever they please has been questioned. So who is expecting others to conform to their agenda? Certainly not me. What I am sugesting is that this group exhibit a degree of consideration and respect for the rights, interests and comfort of others rather than simply trampelling over them or attacking anyone who does not adhere to their lifestyle. It is very telling when we look at the responses of those on this thread. They have typified exactly the arrogance I have referred to. Not the slightest ounce of self-awareness or consideration of the fact that there are others who are inconvenienced by the behaviour identified. Simply a selfish, arrogant, dismissive attitude to others who are attempting to use the same space which they also pay for in ways that suit their needs and desires. Rather than taking a step backwards to reflect on their own behaviour and ask a few searching personal questions, the attitude has been to gang up, insult, attempt to ridicule and attack someone wo speaks on behalf of a significant group who have a very different experience of living in ED. Alternatively, rather than expandedtheir awareness a little, they engage in risibly stupid and childish assertions that I want to ban families and children from ED or engage in some sort of criminal cull or have feelings of hatred to children. Then they engage in transparent projection when, evidently nfuriated by a worldview different from theirs, they accuse me of being enraged or furious. And you have the gall to accuse me of trying to impose on others how they should live???? And you appear to be engaging in some amateur psycho-analysing in order to discover my "issue" and make absurd speculation about why I think what I think. Let me save yo the trouble. My issue, if you want to label it as such, is that there is a social group in ED who behave selfishly and with no consideration for others in public places in ED. They treat the local environment as if it is a giant romper room or holiday camp. The remedy I have put forward very clearly is not that people should live as I expect them to (I have no particular expectations of any group) but that they show at least a modicum of awareness and consideration for other groups n ED who share the same space. Frankly, I am shocked that you have managed to get my osition so hopelessly wrong.

If the stupidity of your last few comments even had the saving grace of wit or humour, they might have been worth the effort of posting them. Sadly, they haven't. I notice your attempt civilservant to recruit more posters to your strategy of harrying a dissenting voice rather than addressing the issues. Again, very transparent and indicative that you have no capacity to engage in the argument. It must be very frustrating, I understand, to hear that your own little world-view and personal Eden are not as perfect as you would like and I imagine it is you currently with the purple face and elevated BP when you are not able to bully or insult someone into agreeing with you or keeping quiet. Hence your call for help. In effect you are saying "Some one is saying something I don't like to hear. help me shout at him until he goes away." A childish response is, I think, the best description of that approach. Also, your BP must be well and truly up if you are now engaging again rather than considering it a waste of your time. MP - your posts are really no better. Again, no attempt to address the issues. As I have already noted, you are free to pretend that no-one has the right to legitimately hold an opinion different from yours and derive whatever comfort you take from such denial. Equally, you are entitled to avert your gaze from the fact that, whether they constitute your personal social circle or not, there are many people and local business people who find the behaviour I have described annoying, inconsiderate and plain rude.

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gosh, since I am a stay at home mum and go to the > local cafes to meet my friends with children, I > hadn't actually stopped to think that some of the > people there working on laptops and taking > advantage of the free Wi-fi (clearly not supplied > for the benefit of toddlers) may actually be > hard-working self employed people who find it > extremely difficult to focus when my two year old > is screaming because I am ignoring him or is > repeatedly banging his Tommy Tiptree mug on the > table." > > If you 'chose' to work in a public place (other > than the library) then I don't think you can > complain about the noise from other patrons. I > appreciate not everyone can afford to have the > internet at home but that's another topic. So if I decided to stick my iphone on speaker and blast out a bit of hip-hop no-one would be entitled to ask me to turn it down or off? After all, if someone goes to a cafe or bar and everyone is entitled to act with complete disregard for others there is no reason why I should not play mymusic if I want to.

GSJ57 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not attempting to 'beat a dignified retreat' > - but I truly do not understand why you feel so > strongly about this. It has been said many times > in this thread - the parking spaces are not there > because parents think they are special. They are > there to make the whole experience of shopping > with small children a little easier. Of course > it's a marketing tool on Sainsburys part, but if > my children were still small I would be very > grateful those parking places existed. I think that various posts have elaborated the fact that this thread does not exist in isolation and that the response of a number of posters is as it is due to the local zeitgeist which exhibits the selfishness and sense of entitlement that has been mentioned. In terms of gratitude for larger parking spaces - I imagine anyone who goes shopping would be grateful for them. The issue as I see it is that many parents DO THINK THEY ARE SPECIAL and entitled to behave in the local community in ways that inconvenience others, without them or their children being subject to any censure or restraint whatsoever. The originating posts in this thread reflect exactly that sort of entitlement - rather than being appreciative that such spaces are available at any time, there was complete outrage that those without children had the gall to use them. That sense of entitlement and the "my family and children are more important than other people without children" attitude which is evidenced locally day and daily provide the background which for many people makes this thread a particularly sensitive one. We could equally ask why this issue is so important to the OP that it was started at all. We could equally ask why the incoident in the MIND shop was perceived as being so significant that someone actually went to the tabloids with it? That was another example of this absurd entitlement - an individual was so incensed at her 'right' to breast-feed in a changhing room (designed for trying on clothes and one of only two in the shop) that when that was thwrated (admittedly in a very rude manner) it had to become a cause celebre in the national press. The self-centred, unboundaried, entitled and selfish attitude evidence by the person responsible for that embarrassed a mental health charity in the nation's eyes and possibly jeapordised the employment of the worker in the shop who may have had mental health issues himself (MIND often employs people with a mental health history). For that poster her indignation and rage at not having her and her child's 'rights' put at the very top of the agenda was placed as being a higher priority than a person's employment, possibly their mental health and the reputation of a charity. When the thread discussing the matter on this forum did not universally endorse her outrage and made the criticisms I have mentioned here, was there any sort of reflection or consideration that maybe there were other people's rights and agendas involved as well? No. On the contrary the person involved had a hissy fit and threw her toys out of the pram that anyone should have the audacity to disagree with her entitlement to do as she pleased. That type of attitude is replicatred in small er ways perhaps, but replicated nonetheless day and daily in ED so when a thread like this with the same whingeing entitlement comes along some people have already had it up to here.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's worth noting at this point that the 'fines' > (actually 'invoices') that Sainsburys hand out are > pretty much legally unenforceable (unless they can > name and prove who the driver of the car was and > therefore establish who the 'contract' was with). > There are many websites out there with the right > form letters to send if you get one. > > So IANAL, but that pretty much means you can park > in the spaces if you want to. > > I would say that this also applies to the disabled > spaces, but I think parking in those is > reprehensible if you are not disabled. So don't. I quite agree with this and I think it was perhaps pointed out before? And I wonder if Sainsburys are going to invoice themselves for their decision to plonk promotional stalls on the spaces?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > soooo.....it boils down to you hate children then. > > Oh bless, and your one time urban london paradise > has become suburban nappy valley hell....my heart > quite literally bleeds liberally for your pain. This is truly pathetic. Please tell me this is tongue in cheek. Is the only way you can understand people objecting to being treated like second-class citizens to assume they hate children. I mean, if you are serious and this is not a troll post, your comment is beyond sad and stupid.

I have such a wonderful optimism for the future of ED when we see all these wonderful people behaving with such complete self centredness and a refusal to entertain the faintest possibility that other people have different opinions and priorities and are irritated and inconvenienced by your behaviour, whilst simultaneously decrying the selfishness of others who don't place you exclusively at the centre of social planning andngive younyour every whim. Is that a whiff of hypocrisy in the air? More than a whiff I think. My blood pressure is fine thank you. Strange and very telling that some posters here can only explain away a dissenting opinion by hallucinating some purple, incandescent Daily Mail reader. Still, I guess that is a comfortable illusion for you. I note now that civilservant, Dave and GSJ57 are attempting to beat a dignified retreat using the old transparent ruse of "It's not worth my time," or "I'll just pretend it's all so funny that there is nothing to say and I'll just agree with others on the same side as me." For the reality of those arguments we should read "Blimey, everything I have tried to say has been shot down and I can't come up with a response. How do I get out of this? I know, despite having engaged in the debate so far, I'll now pretend it's beneath me." A rather predictable and disingenuous strategy. Tell you what, continue to think what you think and behave how you behave. Ignore this opportunity to engage in a little bit of honest self-appraisal and consider the information you now have about the impact of your behaviour on others. Maintain your comfortable illusion that you and your children are the centre of the universe. Try to believe the nonsensical notion that I am a one man army putting forward this viewpoint (by ignoring the fact that this and other similar threads have thrived long before I engaged in them). You are entitled to do all of this rather than engage in reflective thought and consideration for others - but there is a price. Not a big one but a price nonetheless (and one big enough to have kicked off this whole thread). That price is the fact that there is clearly a good number of other East Dulwich residents and business people whose good-will! Support and cooperation you haemorrhage when you behave in this manner. So next time someone parks in a parent/child parking space, looks with anger at your screaming child in a cafe or wine bar (while you ignore it and instead sit chatting with a friend), has a face like thunder when you are paying your bill and they are looking at the feeding frenzy your child has deposited under the table that they will have to sweep up, holds open a door for you and your buggie and pointedly says "You are welcome!" when you breeze past without a word of appreciation etc etc, you might want to consider that their lack of forebearance or patience is due to the fact that day and daily they put up with the sort of selfish, pompous entitlement that has been discussed on this thread. Alternatively you could engage in the reflection I have suggested and consider the follwoing: "I can understand that a hard-working waitress, rushed off her feet during a long shift, might be a bit teed off at the fact that I have allowed my precious angel to push half his/her dinner onto the floor and have made no attempt to clear it up." "Gosh, since I am a stay at home mum and go to the local cafes to meet my friends with children, I hadn't actually stopped to think that some of the people there working on laptops and taking advantage of the free Wi-fi (clearly not supplied for the benefit of toddlers) may actually be hard-working self employed people who find it extremely difficult to focus when my two year old is screaming because I am ignoring him or is repeatedly banging his Tommy Tiptree mug on the table." "You know it is nice from time to time to be able to get a large parking space but I realise I am lucky that they are available at all and I won't complain when I don't get one. Many people have it much worse than me." "Now that I think about it, I can't really expect people to behave like gentlemen and women when I respond to such kindness as if it is an entitlement." "You know, I had never thought really about the fact that me and a friend walking abreast down a pavement with our buggies means other people have to step into the road. Maybe we will keep out eyes open a little or even smile and apologise when we do inconvenience others." I suggest even ten minutes a day engaging in the above suggested contemplation might help you grow as a civilised and courteous person much more than going onto EDF and attempting to gang up on and insult anyone who doesn't see you as the be all and end all of human existence.

Quite so. I am sure there will be those utterly indignant at the very thought that someone not a babe in arms but with genuine needs should dare to usurp the sacred spaces.

Your posts seemed to be nothing more than a statement that you routinely laugh out loud for reasons you are unable to explain or share with others. That type of inappropriate emotional response is a common symptom of mental illness.

Indiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh no? Did I misspell your name? Given you've > got your knickers in such a twist about simple > parent/child spaces I guess you might need some > therapy about a wrong spelling. > > And by the way, I was just expressing my opinion - > the purpose of a forum apparently? Expressing an opinion? You were expressing an opinion? There was an opinion in your posts somewhere? Will I'm d***ed

Indiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again Damien H - you have made me laugh out loud. > > This time I won't even tell you whether for the > right or the wrong reasons > > I guess that's the beauty of a forum The beauty of a forum is you can mis-spell other people's names and post utterly pointless posts? Er, ok.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No-one who is such a complete git online could be > anything other than an utter git in real life. > Damian, I hope you get so outraged that you burst. > I sense that you're nearly there. > > btw, I'm not offended by your stance. Pointless > indignation has never been so entertaining. Oh Dave, your attacks are so hurtful to me, particularly due to their eloquence and your ability to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. One of these days we might even find out that you have an actual opinion. In the meantime we will have to just marvel at your wit and wisdom as conveyed through your ability to use juvenile insults. Perhaps you could go onto some other threads as well and say things to other posters you disagree with like - "you stink", "ya boo" and the like. I am sure everyone else would find you incredibly clever and witty as well. I think those like you lost this discussion quite a while ago the moment you resorted to insults.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course parents have a sense of entitlement when > it comes to 'parent and child' spaces - they are > entitled to use them. It's Sainsburys decision to > designate the spaces such and it takes a special > type of bitterness to look at a young Parent > wrestling their shopping into the car whilst > trying to hold on to their children and think > 'that decadent barsteward with their slightly > bigger parking space'. Get a grip. Straw man argument. Attacking something that wasn't even said or implied.

Indiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damien H - you have made me laugh out loud. > > Not for the right reasons I may add But of course you won't care to elaborate what the 'right' reaons would be and what the reasons are that you laugh for that are 'not right'. Therefore, your post is utterly pointless and makes no contribution whatsoever to this thread. It is very obvious from the fact that these threads often come up on EDF (and the fact that this one has had the longevity it has and the number of contributors on both sides) that this is, whether the last dozen or so posters like it or not, an issue of considerable frustration to a great many people. Most of the recent responses here simpky act to confirm exactly what I have pointed out - a complete inability to consider the perspective of anyone but those with children. As for the plaintive and comparatively 'civil' appeal from civilservant, I think you have missed my point and misattributed an inaccurate position to me. I am not and never have suggested that children be banished anywhere. I have suggested that when parents take them out they should consider the needs and comfort of others as well as those of their children. There is a huge amount of clear evidence day in and day out in ED that a considerable number of parents just don't do so and seem to have no consideration whatsoever for others around them. THAT is what I object to and then, on top of this routine selfishness and inconsideration, we have threads like this complaining of the fact that another priviledge (which is talked about as if it is a human right) is not always available on demand and that those who take a parking space are guilty of gross selfishness and inconsiderateness - pot, kettle, black! I routinely act with considerable helpfulness and courtesy to those with prams, children etc and if I get even the slightest acknowledgment or word of thanks on even half those occasions I would be surprised. The usual response is for said buggie pusher to parade on through the door held open or disregard the decision to step into a doorway or look with indignant irritation at the polite request to be alllowed to get past a pram or to glare with fury at the slightest indication of frustration that their child is endlessly playing drums with a metal spoon on a table. Courteous and responsible parenting and simple acknowledgment of help and courtesies from others, rather than behaviours that reflect an air of aloof, self-centred entitlement would go a long, long way.

That would be a good solution indeed. And why not just label them as 'larger parking spaces' thereby making them available to anyone who wishes to have a bit of extra door room (such as someone who maybe stows their shopping in the back seat of their car ro who wants room to bring the trolly alongside). Equally, a polite notice simplky asking the question "Wide parking space. Please consider whether there are others who might need it more than you." might do the trick a bit better than prohibition and demand. It is this selfish, "I have children so I am special and no-one else's interests count" mentality and the anti-social (yes, I said 'anti-social')behaviour and indignation and affected grievance when others who have their own challenges, pressures, rights etc don't kow-tow to the sacred cow of someone else's supposedly superior rights, that really pisses others off and is almost guaranteed to create resentment. Courtesy, civility and community-mindedness are qualities that should be supported by all and benefit all but I am afraid on issues like this it seems very much to be a one-way street with an appalling sense of self-centred entitlement and contempt for the interests of others bei ng exhibited by many of those who think that anyone without children in tow is a second class citizen.

Oh no, I am outnumbered by a coterie of EDF'ers so that is obviously more important than real life. I suggest that you all read back over the 6 or so pages of discussion earlier and you will probably find plenty of evidence of a number of people who might be saying and seconding, thirding, fourthing etc the same comments about you....in real life! I am sorry if you are so deeply offended about having such a perspective summarised for you. As has been pointed out umpteen times in this thread, people have survived for decades without needing special parking places (some people even manage to shop without a car and with children!!!) and the simple, unavoidable fact is that there are probably many many individuals with or without cars who struggle much more to access shopping than you do. Equally, every time you privilege yourself in this way, someone else is inconvenienced - perhaps mildly but inconvenienced nonetheless. Guess what - I don't have a car. I do all my shopping on foot. Even when I am utterly exhausted from a hard day's work and travel I still manage. I carry my bags of shopping ( as well as my work equipment) home with me or struggle on a bus to transport them. I end up with plastic bag handles cutting into my hands, sore feet and do my shopping at busy times frequently because, as you correctly observe, I earn a living during the day. I tend to put up with that and, believe me, a daytime shopping trip with the luxury of any type of vehicle, parked in any type of parking space, with or without a child, would be a luxury by comparison. I appreciate that there is a tendency amongst many in ED to think they are the centre of the universe, entitled to have their every whim served and satisfied without even casting an eye to see or taking a moment to think about what their self-centred world view actual means to others who share the same space and amenities. Take a look on LL to see how many of the bars and cafes are enlisted to serve as surrogate kindergartens, often to the chagrin of the staff there who have to clean up the mess and to the the great inconvenience of other patrons who perhaps want a quiet sit down in a primarily adult environment without having to listen to screeching children hammering table tops with spoons and navigate an assault course of buggies. I see these other patrons routinely and speak often to the staff who may be too polite to say anything to the faces of the said parents but believe me many are pretty disgusted. Add to that the tendency of droves of buggie pushers to walk down the road two or three abreast waiting for pedestrians to step into the street or a shop doorway to let them pass and you have pretty compelling evidence of presumptious, me-me-me, selfish entitlement by a bunch of what could be fairly classed as "gits". In light of this routinely experienced behaviour which, when challenged, evokes a shocked and pompous indignation - you might get some appreciation as to why there are some people who are not immediately moved to tears by your terrible ordeal of struggling to find a parking space. Instead of labelling such people as "gits" you might want to consider how the behaviour referred to above could be addressed in order to make it more likely that your terrible plight would be more sympathetically heard by the community at large.

buggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd have no problem with the spaces being further > away, for me it's purely that I need space to open > the passenger door enough to be able to get my 10 > month old out of her car seat and know that it > won't get blocked in while I'm in the store. Half > the time there isn't any space available and I do > end up at the other end of the store. > > I'm afraid even after 6 pages of this thread, I > still don't understand why there is such a hoo-haa > about the provision of these spaces and the > mentality of those who park in them without > children - what makes them so special to take > something that isn't for them/why can't they > respect those it is provided for? I think a simple summary of the mentality you don't seem able to grasp is that they wonder what makes you think you are so special as to expect special treatment to the detriment of others due to the fact that you have chosen to have children and take them shopping with you.

Absolutely right Katie, and as I pointed out elsewhere some of those up in court for offencs in Croydon were charged with stealing food from Munchies Bakery! And who says the only threat is to shops which stock goods people want? Reeves furniture was burnt to the ground because it was there, not because anyone planned to make off with a three piece suite.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I rather the police in charge of this then > vigilantes. I am well aware that things have quietened and that there are more police on the streets. This whole thread has been based on what we would do if the situation deteriorated again. Second point - obviously some vigilantes have been racist groups. Is your contention therefore that some local watch or protective alliance cannot be constructed on a non-racist and responsible basis? Of course a group could be brought together with a civilised non-racist agenda of doing nothibg but protecting local people and property. A slightly comical and obviously larger scale (and armed) example was the Home Guard during WW2. That body (obviously hard to think of with out laughing due to Dad's Army) was made up of respectable, decent folk with no gretaer agenda than protecting their local areas. There was no racist or greater social agenda there at all. Third point - yes there are currently 16,000 officers on the street and things are quiet. If you have been following the news, however, you will have seen the universal view that such nmbers are completely unsustainable.