nursery cut our daughters hair, update on page 9

BallandChain

BFG has OCD with his ABC.

Morgan_Ree

BallandChain wrote: »

BFG has OCD with his ABC.

I bet you were laughing as you typed this

Ah go on admit it!

BallandChain

Ah ok I admit it.

BFG_2

Ah, go on, ya will, ya will, go on...ya will.

Copyright: Father Ted, C4.

BFG_2

BallandChain wrote: »

BFG has OCD with his ABC.

BTW FYI I love TLAs

HTH

BFG

BFG_2

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

Is this thread gonna (oooohh that must kill you BFG!!!)

Dunno [sic] why you say that....:D

In all honesty I'm not too bothered about 'gonna'....coz [sic] it's kinda [sic] easy on the eye [iirc I've even used it myself on occasion, :embarasse:embarasse!!!].

BFG_2

pelirocco wrote: »

Using multiple / and [ doesn't make for easy reading either

Au contraire [as the French would say], the whole point is that they are to aid understanding/comprehension/meaning/context [HTH].

redux

I just read this thread for the first time, so I'll apologise for going back a bit

dfh wrote: »

Legal obligation-duty of care-socialist clap trap new labour health and safety gone mad. we need less of such rubbish and a good whack of common sense.Thankfully we should get that next year when the tories come to power.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Perhaps when looking for millions in compensation from the nusery it will be worth mentioning that having a bit of hair trimmed off has left the little mite mentally scarred for life?

Instead of making brain-dead remarks like this, go back to the context again.

The place is incompetently run. The first thing wrong would be using paint that can't be easily washed out with water. More informed people than you or I are saying that some of the behaviour, specifically the haircut without permission, is illegal, and I believe them.

It isn't socialist claptrap to suggest that people have a right to be informed what happened. This place blatantly lacked common sense and respect and were stupid enough to fail to do so, to try to pass off this kid's appearance as unaltered, and subsequently lied about it all.

Let's say you have kids. Let's replay this incident with one of your kids then. But this time the paint is definitely not water-based, and goes in the kid's eyes.

How many roofs will you go through when you find out about it in enough detail only three weeks later, including the incompetent cleaning methods attempted with unsuitable solvents on site instead of taking the kid straight to hospital, after doctor's tests tell you that the kid's eyesight and tear ducts have been temporarily damaged and there's a very small risk of not making a full recovery?

Suddenly that feels rather different to you, doesn't it?

I hope.

And even if it makes you feel militant you still don't need to join the red army.

mandragora_2

redux wrote: »

I
Let's say you have kids. Let's replay this incident with one of your kids then. But this time the paint is definitely not water-based, and goes in the kid's eyes.

How many roofs will you go through when you find out about it in enough detail only three weeks later, including the incompetent cleaning methods attempted with unsuitable solvents on site instead of taking the kid straight to hospital, after doctor's tests tell you that the kid's eyesight and tear ducts have been temporarily damaged and there's a very small risk of not making a full recovery?

Suddenly that feels rather different to you, doesn't it?

I hope.

And even if it makes you feel militant you still don't need to join the red army.

Well of course it would get a different response - eyesight & tear ducts don't regrow if damaged (or cut, as here). Hair does. I'm not saying the op wasn't right to be cross - I would have been, too, but your analogy isn't comparing like with like.

willa

BFG wrote: »

Here you go, make your own minds up........

My 1st PM was

HYDM….
.. but when you're talking about 'possessive' it's 'their' not 'there', eg their policy, their car, etc

HTH
END

Sadly I deleted the response, but it was to the tune of…..

SO WHAT!!!!!!
I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY!!!. DON’T SEND ME ANY MORE PMS!!!!
END

I replied

1. Stop shouting.

2. I was merely trying to help you understand the correct use of there/their.

3. If you want to continue to parade your obvious ignorance for all to see, then feel free to do so.
END

And then sadly I gave into the urge and sent ….

Don't worry........as per your request, I won't send you any more PMs.
END

And finally [having set it up with the previous PM]….

Sorry.....but when I sent you a PM [explaining that I wouldn't send any more PMs], it didn't click that I was actually sending you a PM [which you didn't want].

Won't happen again......again.
END

So as you can see it’s hardly ‘5 threatening PMs’, rather [IMO] a polite PM, a response to a ‘shouty/snotty’ reply, followed by 2 PMs saying I wouldn’t send anymore PMs [whilst sending PMs’].

It’s not my fault some people had their sense of humour surgically removed and replaced by skin so thin that it makes tissue paper look like 3 ft of reinforced concrete, is it??

If you agree with Thin-Skin Thicko – call 09090875647.

If you agree with Chief Pedant – call 0909864364

All calls are £1.50 and a percentage goes to line the pockets of Ant & Dec, err I mean a charity.

I wasn't saying that we should see the PMs by the way BFG! But thanks for showing, it was as I thought.