Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well you seem to 'know' a lot about me based on your 'views' on 'parents' which I'm one, so I suspect my take on you as a spotty little nurd troll is not far wrong and if it isn't? Well, so whats a whole load of stereotyped prejudices between cyber rowers? Anyway go and keep it reel in Bellenden...couple of pints in the Wishing Well with locals, respect, you're the urban man

???? Wrote:

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

> Well you seem to 'know' a lot about me based on

> your 'views' on 'parents' which I'm one, so I

> suspect my take on you as a spotty little nurd

> troll is not far wrong and if it isn't? Well, so

> whats a whole load of stereotyped prejudices

> between cyber rowers? Anyway go and keep it reel

> in Bellenden...couple of pints in the Wishing Well

> with locals, respect, you're the urban man


I'm allowed to dislike other peoples' children, in the same way I'm allowed to dislike other peoples' pets / music tastes.


You seem to be persuing some kind of idiot's agenda centred around the belief that I'm pogo-stick riding Barley, obsessed with appearing credible to people on the internet I'll never meet.


Excuse me anyway, I'm off to a 'rap concert' this evening

Children are more likely to be the victims in a car accident, And in London 75% of accidents where there are injuries involve people outside the car. I know when I am trying to park or pull away and there are kids about it is much harder to do safely as you cant see them and they will be unpredictable. Also if I ran over a child I could never forgive myself.


Oh, no. The "Won't Somebody Pleeeeese Think of the Children" line again. There should be some sort of Godwin's Law to tackle this argument.


Anyway, if you are so concerned about children, should you be going around touting as "the E dealer"??!!

taper Wrote:

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

> The Sainsbury's car park is a dangerous place.

> Parent parking bays are close to the store to

> minimise the danger to children and wider to give

> parents more space to get in and out with

> children. It is a safety provision. And most

> people with children welcome it.


Rubbish. Lordship Lane is a dangerous place. Should children be banned?


"Minimise the danger to children" my bottom. More like "wrap them in cotton wool".

I suggest that Sainsburys limit the number of children that any family (mother and/or father) are allowed to bring into the store to one at any time.


If you insist on bringing more than the regulated number of children, you must pay a minimum of ?5 tax per child.

The cost per child will increase by ?2 for every 2.5 centimetres each child is taller than the handle of a large sainsburys shopping trolley


Nectar points can be claimed on the child tax.

Horsebox Wrote:

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

> I suggest that Sainsburys limit the number of

> children that any family (mother and/or father)

> are allowed to bring into the store to one at any

> time.

>

> If you insist on bringing more than the regulated

> number of children, you must pay a minimum of ?5

> tax per child.

> The cost per child will increase by ?2 for every

> 2.5 centimetres each child is taller than the

> handle of a large sainsburys shopping trolley

>

> Nectar points can be claimed on the child tax.



I like this idea.


When you're submitting this request can you chase my suggestion that they only play DC Hardcore and speed metal over the in-store radio?

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "And those with children are very accomplished at

> making the world feel that everything should be

> made more convenient for them just because they

> have made a certain lifestyle CHOICE!!!"

>

> A lifestyle choice that brought you into the

> world, Dom......oh well, no going back now.


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.

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.

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?

I don't know why anyone would want to take a poor little innocent nipper into DKH Sainsbury's anyway. Is like the third circle of hell. Have never seen such a bunch of sour faced gets in one place in my life. I make a point of making eye contact with people and SMILING- just to watch the panic flash in their cold hard eyes.


Course New X Sainsbury's is another story. All babies get a free chupa chups lolly and their cheeks pinched by nice old ladies. And you can park right in the bus stop outside for two hours and no-one minds.

Domitianus Wrote:


> And cramped parking, making it difficult to open

> doors, is not a problem for those without

> children???? We just slither through

> keyholes????? This stuff about "safety" is

> claptrap. This is simply a matter of CONVENIENCE,

> not safety. And those with children are very

> accomplished at making the world feel that

> everything should be made more convenient for them

> just because they have made a certain lifestyle

> CHOICE!!!


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


Domanatrix


Quite often I park my car with the "booster seat & mandatory scattering of toys inside" in the parent only bays, even though I have no child with me......Ahhh ha ha....


Coz I can , I make that life style choice & it's blinkin brilliant


Really it's so convenient & knowing grown ups like yourselves will bridle......ohh top, top banana


Where do you shop, i'll keep a look out for you


Cheers


W**F

Lordy the pediaphobes are out tonight. If you want to park near the store, have a kid. Simple. I had a fabulous experience once in DKH where an enraged parent flamed me thinking I'd parked in a parent-child space without having a child with me (I'd returned to the car to load the boot, and a couple of minutes prior to the mother and sprog). The joy watching the fugger's face drop as the progeny emerged was pure and trembling. I've tried to replicate the experience ever since, without so much as a bite.

PROSouthwark Wrote:

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

> Anyone who shops at the big supermarkets cares

> nothing for our children, our planet and our

> collective future.


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


No, we're a reckless feckless lot, still the booze is cheap !

The child and parent bays are obviously designed for parents with babies in pushchairs. If you can't understand why the whole shopping/parking/car loading experience may be a bit more tricky for them, you're a complete tool. Nobody's asking you to bend over backwards to accomodate them, it's just a small measure to make their trip a bit easier, and ultimately to encourage them to come to the shop.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> The child and parent bays are obviously designed

> for parents with babies in pushchairs. If you

> can't understand why the whole

> shopping/parking/car loading experience may be a

> bit more tricky for them, you're a complete tool.

> Nobody's asking you to bend over backwards to

> accomodate them, it's just a small measure to make

> their trip a bit easier, and ultimately to

> encourage them to come to the shop.


*worlds smallest violin plays for the self-important parents*

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

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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