Sainsburys - disabled parking (Lounged)

[lenk]

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

[woofmarkthedog]

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

[taper]

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.

[grabot]

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?

[lenk]

I have enjoyed reading this thread.

that is all.

[woofmarkthedog]

lenk Wrote:

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

> I have enjoyed reading this thread.

>

>

> that is all.

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

Lenk

Me too & I like your spirit

W**F

[woofmarkthedog]

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

[Muley]

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.

[*Bob*]

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.

[lenk]

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?

[woofmarkthedog]

*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

[*Bob*]

Don't worry - just leave it for another five pages, then say it again.

Double the glory.

[Domitianus]

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?

[Domitianus]

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."

[Loz]

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.

[pk]

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?

[Domitianus]

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.

[Muley]

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!

[woofmarkthedog]

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

[Domitianus]

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.

[*Bob*]

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

[woofmarkthedog]

Wos that then ?

[the-e-dealer]

Hard Bolied Egg Parking Bays - What are you on about?

[Keef]

Can I just jump in here, and ask people to STOP quoting entire posts in order to supply a one line comment. It is really annoying (much in keeping with this thread I guess).

[*Bob*]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Can I just jump in here, and ask people to STOP

> quoting entire posts in order to supply a one line

> comment. It is really annoying (much in keeping

> with this thread I guess).

ok