Tesco - Parent/Child + disabled car spaces

mumps

asbestos2008 wrote: »

bet those of you who are grandparents use them!!

I look after my grandsons two days a week and I don't use them. It was only when I started reading this thread that I realised I have never felt the need to use a special space when out with them but when I am out with my disabled husband we always use a space for blue badge holders. I have to say from my point of view if it is a contest then blue badge holders need the spaces, adults out with young children might want them but don't need them.

FatAndy

BFG wrote: »

FatAndy wrote: »

It seems to me that this is the same type of offence, if an idiot chooses to willingly park in a space that is clearly marked as being for parents (with kids present) then he's guilty. End of story. QUOTE]

Wrong - double yellow is against the law [legal statute] so if you park there you 'deserve' a ticket [and the n you simple use a loophole to avoid paying] , whereas supermarket P&C etc have no legal standing etc.....

So, you chose a bad analogy and it's not quite the end of story?

Not this again. I couldn't give a monkeys that one is a criminal offence and one a civil offence. The fact is that some ASBO yob committed an anti-social offence and got his comeuppance. I couldn't care less whether or not parking in a P&C space is covered by statute or not. He was in the wrong and suffered as a result of his own moronic selfishness.

As for the analogy I think it's a good one. We are discussing some prat who ignored a rule prohibiting him from parking in a particular space. OK so misuisng a supermarket car park isn't covered by statute but if the owners of the land have made it clear that certain people shouldn't park in certain areas of the car park then those people shouldn't park there. Clearly in this case he was in the wrong, end of story.

Could I ask why you see the need to defend this yob?

FatAndy

BFG wrote: »

Starvation.

In twenty minutes!!!!!!!

Call the Guiness Book of Records.

frugallass

BFG wrote: »

Starvation.

hmmmm :rolleyes:

biscit

FatAndy wrote: »

We are discussing some prat who ignored a rule prohibiting him from parking in a particular space. OK so misuisng a supermarket car park isn't covered by statute but if the owners of the land have made it clear that certain people shouldn't park in certain areas of the car park then those people shouldn't park there. Clearly in this case he was in the wrong, end of story.

This is an obvious and correct point, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this.

Yes, I can see how some people may not see the point or need of parent and child spaces, and are a bit nonplussed or amused by them. But if you actively have a problem with their existence, or feel that the lack of a law to protect them means there is nothing wrong in ignoring the signs and doing what you like, then you have a problem.

BFG_2

FatAndy wrote: »

Could I ask why you see the need to defend this yob?

I'm not defending this yob.

I'm simply asking why you feel that YOU are above the law yourself. You cry 'obey the law [of parking and spaces]' and then turn around and say it's perfectly OK to [in essence] hold someone hostage because they parked in a P&C space?

Oh I get it, you're the arbiter of right and wrong and it's OK for you to break the law because you're doing it to 'correct an injustice/punish a wrongdoer.

Either you support the law, or you don't; if you do support the law, how do you then justify breaking it??

Reminds me of the line from Nixon - 'I'm saying when the President does it, it's not illegal'.

olias

FatAndy wrote: »

BFG wrote: »

Not this again. I couldn't give a monkeys that one is a criminal offence and one a civil offence. The fact is that some ASBO yob committed an anti-social offence and got his comeuppance. I couldn't care less whether or not parking in a P&C space is covered by statute or not. He was in the wrong and suffered as a result of his own moronic selfishness.

As for the analogy I think it's a good one. We are discussing some prat who ignored a rule prohibiting him from parking in a particular space. OK so misuisng a supermarket car park isn't covered by statute but if the owners of the land have made it clear that certain people shouldn't park in certain areas of the car park then those people shouldn't park there. Clearly in this case he was in the wrong, end of story.

Could I ask why you see the need to defend this yob?

So now we think it's right to verbally abuse those who we have opposing views to, very adult I'm sure. Is this how you deal with all the disagreements in your life? Well done:T

Olias

FatAndy

BFG wrote: »

I'm not defending this yob.

I'm simply asking why you feel that YOU are above the law yourself. You cry 'obey the law [of parking and spaces]' and then turn around and say it's perfectly OK to [in essence] hold someone hostage because they parked in a P&C space?

Oh I get it, you're the arbiter of right and wrong and it's OK for you to break the law because you're doing it to 'correct an injustice/punish a wrongdoer.

Either you support the law, or you don't; if you do support the law, how do you then justify breaking it??

Reminds me of the line from Nixon - 'I'm saying when the President does it, it's not illegal'.

I don't consider myself to be above the law at all. In twenty four years of driving I've never once parked on a double yellow line which is why I've never once received a parking ticket, been clamped, towed away, etc. I've also never once parked in a P&C space when I haven't had one or both of my kids in the car.

I'd also point out that I'm not 'justifying breaking the law' because as someone said in a post somewhere above 'supermarket P&C etc have no legal standing etc.....'. If the yob states that he can park where he likes he can't really complain if other people follow his lead can he?

It just strikes me that regardless of your opinions on P&C spaces it's blatently wrong for an anti-social yob to knowingly and willfully cause needless inconvienience to a lady with a disabled child. I suspect that in this particular case 99.9% of civilised people would think 'serves him right' and allow themselves a little chuckle. It's the 0.1% who choose to support him that worry me.

olias

sinderella wrote: »

And why the sarcasm, Olias? I am not sure what point you are making.
As a disabled woman Morglin puts up with a lot of hassle when trying to park and has the right to fell irked and take direct action if someone else has the right to park in a disabled spot they do not need.

Of course if these spots weren't abused then Morglin would not take action and therefore would not warrant snide comments from you.

So are you advocating direct vigilante action by customers when somene feels affronted at anothers failure to follow a supermarkets rule?

My comments were not snide, but sarcastic. And yes I feel every right to make them when anyone (disabled or not) advocates a petty tit for tat approach to someone in order to 'get ones own back' or 'teach someone a lesson'. Very school playgroundish I'm sure.

Olias

asbestos2008

No one was held hostage..he was free to leave whenever he wanted...
So it is ok for someone to use thing because it is there even if they are not entitled too??

So it is ok for my son to run out of the car and get killed by some speeding yob around a supermarket carpark, who probably isnt insuranced in some death trap of a car.

It inconvienced him, for a few minutes, my son does not have the choice. he will be disabled for life. So one little thing that helps him is for a reason, no matter whether it is on a supermarket carpark or not!!

As for being selfish, I obey the law and i respect others, however i to have a right to protect my children.

My children are taught to respect others and uphold there principles

I too have a threshold at which I pop:mad: Did i scratch his car, let down his tyres, cause him real hardship, break any law? I just gave him a taste of payback.