Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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



Ah, the old 'We desreve special treatment because we buy more pointless shite, need larger cars and oh I can't keep my legs closed' argument

Not deserve, buy. We buy more so we get treated better.

It's a crass society but hey what's life without a system to play.


Oh and pleaseee no, don't tell me your "shite" don't stink


Lastly legs don't "technically" open, maybe you mean c*nts. Perhaps you could expand on this one ?



W**F

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.

So, market forces are a transcendent expression of natural law? Pushing us towards a perfectly functioning Utopia. Sainsbury's executive decision makers are infallible as market forces dictate their decisions. All things are justifiable if driven by market forces?

grabot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, market forces are a transcendent expression of

> natural law? Pushing us towards a perfectly

> functioning Utopia. Sainsbury's executive

> decision makers are infallible as market forces

> dictate their decisions. All things are

> justifiable if driven by market forces?


........................................................


No but a positive or grim reality driven by money, like most things.



Nice day today though, you can't buy that & it wont last.......perfect!



W**F

woofmarkthedog is spot on in saying that Sainsburys provide these spaces to cater for their most economically valuable customers. And speaking of economic viability it is todays children who will form the society of tomorrow, including the tax payers who will be funding your old age pension. Put simply, you need them far more than they need you.

Indeed.

You can also find this information a hundred years ago, back on page one:



Huguenot Wrote (back on page one - a hundred years ago:

-------------------------------------------------------


> So logically, it's only a marketing gimmick.


> Sainsbury's obviously feel they retain more

> business from a valuable customer base by having

> them there.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed.

> You can also find this information a hundred years

> ago, back on page one:

>

>

> Huguenot Wrote (back on page one - a hundred years

> ago:

> --------------------------------------------------



Oh *Bob* now you gone an' ruined it.....


...just when I was starting to look all smart like innit an all.


Hope it rains in the Barry Roadish area now......meh!




W**F

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?

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."

I'm sure people may argue this (as (a) I have no stats and (b) people do so love to argue), but I'm willing to proffer the outrageous suggestion that, in general, richer people spend more money than poorer people.


So, in the Woof Theory of Economics, should Sainsbury's be dividing the car park into 'crap' and 'posh' cars? Or, if you like, the "Sainsbury's Basics" section and the "Taste The Difference" section. You can only park here if you're in the 40% tax bracket.


And, of course, being the Lidl of the motoring world, force people in Skodas to park in the street. The P13 would be re-routed to Peckham and the bus station converted to a valet parking service at a fiver a pop.


Actually, Woof, I think Jeremy Clarkson might have thought of this first with his "better use for the M4 bus lane" rant.

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?

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.

lenk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've actually conceived and had 3 kids since this

> thread began over 12 years ago, and take back

> whatever I might have said earlier - does

> Sainsbury's DKH have space for a Hummer?



Park it sideways and take up 3 disabled spaces!

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure people may argue this (as (a) I have no

> stats and (b) people do so love to argue), but I'm

> willing to proffer the outrageous suggestion that,

> in general, richer people spend more money than

> poorer people.

>

> So, in the Woof Theory of Economics, should

> Sainsbury's be dividing the car park into 'crap'

> and 'posh' cars? Or, if you like, the

> "Sainsbury's Basics" section and the "Taste The

> Difference" section. You can only park here if

> you're in the 40% tax bracket.

>

> And, of course, being the Lidl of the motoring

> world, force people in Skodas to park in the

> street. The P13 would be re-routed to Peckham and

> the bus station converted to a valet parking

> service at a fiver a pop.

>

> Actually, Woof, I think Jeremy Clarkson might have

> thought of this first with his "better use for the

> M4 bus lane" rant.



.......................................................


Now this sounds like my version of a market forces utopia


40% tax bracket, Yuk that means you are an "employee" .....


Erm.... offseting is far better I find, can we have special spaces for that too.


W**F

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.

Indeed.


Let's say, for example, we are discussing the particulars of disabled access at a particular train station. By way of an analogy, I might hold-up, say, a hard-boiled egg - and then ask you to imagine that station not as a train station, but as a hard-boiled egg. See?


It's not difficult. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who understands me.. jeez

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here is another article from the excellent Special Needs Jungle (SNJ) with tips for responses to the SEND conversation survey. Including shoe horning in EHCPs which they "forget" to ask a question about in the conversation. And living as we do in Southwark with the huge misfortune of 100% academy secondary schools, some thoughts on this and how unlikely inclusion in mainstream is within the current education landscape. Closing date 14 Jan 2026. And please consider a donation to the excellent entirely run by volunteers SNJ. In my view the government could save money by creating some smaller mainstream secondary schools for kids who can cope in primary school but not  with the scale of secondary, and need a calmer less busy setting. The funding would have to be different - it is currently on a per pupil basis which favours larger schools. But it would undoubtedly be cheaper than specialist provision, and the huge cost to individual children and families (emotional and financial) and to society. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/tips-help-complete-governments-send-conversation-survey-law/ If anyone wants to take a radical step to help their struggling child, my tip is to move far away: these are the best two schools I have ever visited and in a beautiful part of the country. I only wish we'd moved there before it was too late for my son who had to suffer multiple failings at Charter North and then at the hands of Southwark SEND, out of education from February to October in year 10-11, having already suffered the enduring trauma of a very difficult early life, which in combination with ADHD made his time at schools which just don't care so very unbearable for all of us. https://www.cartmelprioryschool.co.uk/ https://settlebeck.org/ As an add on, I would say to anybody considering adoption, please take into account the education battles that you are very much more likely to face than the average parent. First you have schools to deal with, already terrible; then being passed from pillar to post within Southwark Education, SEND, Education Inclusion Team, round and round as they all do their best to explain why they are not responsible and you need someone different, let's hold another multi-agency meeting, never for one minute considering that if they put the child at the centre and used common sense they would achieve a lot more in much less time without loads of Southwark employees sitting in endless meetings with long suffering parents. It is hard to fully imagine this at the start of your adoption journey, full of hope as you are, but truly education is not for the faint hearted, and should be factored into your decision. You'll never hear from people who are really struggling and continue to do so, only from those who've had challenges but overcome them and it's all lovely. And education, the very people who should be there to help, are the ones who make your lives the most hellish out of everything your child and you face.
    • It’s a big problem all over London. I’ve seen it happen in Kennington and Bloomsbury in the last year. I think there has been some progress recently with some key arrests, but you do need to be very careful when walking around with your phone out, especially, as you say, if wearing noise cancelling headphones. Sorry you experienced this 
    • Luke Johnson (prominent director and co-owner), supported Brexit and backed the Vote Leave campaign. He also described the response to Covid as ‘a campaign of fear’ and 2020 funded a media consultant for the ‘Covid-recovery group’ of anti-lockdown MPs.
    • I'm a bit of an architecture geek and I must confess I find it one of the most gimmicky ugly redesigns I've seen in a while. I'm always open to quirky but this is just not nice in any way shape or form.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...