Tesco - Parent/Child + disabled car spaces

kernewek

notafan wrote: »

Also you may have missed this whilst 'working...earning' but Neanderthal's are extinct.

:j

Apparantly not. Clearly you have nothing better to do than post on here to get a rise out of people so I suggest you crawl back under the rock from which you came. If you can't put an argument across without getting personal then don't bother.

kernewek

notafan wrote: »

The needs of your child are to be met by you the parent.

The child has no real need to visit a supermarket in the first place.

Additionally I've never seen a baby bigger then a carrier bag of shopping and never had any bother stuff bags on the seats front or back.

Just because its easier does not mean its automatic. If people choose to use them or 'abuse' them (said very loosely) as you state its probably because they too don't see why its such a big deal for such spaces.

People are more resistant when you go on about how needed these are for you or how difficult it is for you. Fact is your taking what should be a simple action and making it into a huge deal by making out you can't manage without this.

I suggest you read through the thread, but your argument (thanks for making a sensible one by the way) is based on that babies don't need to go to the supermarket. True. In the same way they don't need to go into town, parks, out for walks .......... (Insert place here) But we have as much right to take our baby/child as you have to go and if supermarkets choose to provide this facility then so be it, but it should not be abused.
I don't think it is reasonable behaviour to do this and clearly is the actions of a very small minority of people. I have never stated that I could not manage without it. It just makes life a lot easier.

FatAndy

notafan wrote: »

The needs of your child are to be met by you the parent.

The child has no real need to visit a supermarket in the first place.

What a stupid comment. Years ago when our first child was a baby my wife worked in the retail industry and I worked in a Monday to Friday office job. As my wife often worked Saturdays and Sundays we only ocassionally got a day off together. This meant that which ever of us did the shopping had no choice but to take our child with them. Or perhaps notafan (should that be notabrain) would prefer we left a twelve month old baby home alone while we went to the supermarket?

I wonder if notafan drives a black Mondeo -

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/06/22/selfish-drivers-flouting-parking-rules-in-north-wales-55578-23939027/

sinderella_2

I agree with FatAndy, there are countless stupid comments on here. Several people keep trying to bring it back to the point and others seem to enjoy being offensive and in so doing just come across as ignorant. Perhaps it's time to abandon the debate and realise that there will always be people who like to rant about nothing in particular.
fwiw
Only people who have babies and toddlers are aware of the big difference allocated parking makes to them and I don't feel that anyone else is qualified to comment on that. As to the moral/ethical/good manners issue about whether it is right to use these spots if you don't have an accompanying infant, I guess we all have to accept that standards of behaviour vary hugely. Nobody is going to alter their behaviour or attitude from this (largely insulting and puerile) debate so I'm outta here!!! :T

kernewek

FatAndy wrote: »

What a stupid comment. Years ago when our first child was a baby my wife worked in the retail industry and I worked in a Monday to Friday office job. As my wife often worked Saturdays and Sundays we only ocassionally got a day off together. This meant that which ever of us did the shopping had no choice but to take our child with them. Or perhaps notafan (should that be notabrain) would prefer we left a twelve month old baby home alone while we went to the supermarket?

I wonder if notafan drives a black Mondeo -

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/06/22/selfish-drivers-flouting-parking-rules-in-north-wales-55578-23939027/

Interesting article that highlights my point about ASDA

sinderella_2

just popped back to say, excellent little article, fatandy and kernewek - but glad it wasn't me wasting an hour observing parking bays.....

sarahg1969

kernewek wrote: »

Interesting article that highlights my point about ASDA

It also highlights the ignorance of the media. They are not fines.

kernewek

sarahg1969 wrote: »

It also highlights the ignorance of the media. They are not fines.

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. The fact is there is a DETERRENT whether it is legally enforcable and whether they actually do or not is irrelevant, what is important is that it puts people off.

trisontana

sarahg1969 wrote: »

It also highlights the ignorance of the media. They are not fines.

Precisely. And shame on ASDA for also calling them by that name. To make the point again, they are unenforceable invoices and to call them "fines" is tantamount to fraud and obtaining money by false pretences.

sarahg1969

kernewek wrote: »

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. The fact is there is a DETERRENT whether it is legally enforcable and whether they actually do or not is irrelevant, what is important is that it puts people off.

It does matter; of course it does. To suggest that you have authority to fine people, and to give them tickets called things like "Fixed Penalty Notice" or "Penalty Charge Notice" is nothing short of fraud.

It is illegal to demand money from people (or to suggest that you have authority to do so) by pretending that you are acting in some official capacity.