Dangerous Poundland Glitter Globes

LilElvis

Andyjenk wrote: »

Wrong on several counts. My partner was not there. Not her child but her grandchild. Please reread the OP.
Check out Clinton Cards or Card Factory. Both are selling Valentine's Gifts aimed at young children (see my other post). Valentine's Day is not just for adults these days. So where do you get the information that it was being sold to be given to adults from?

Perhaps you should try rereading your own post in which you refer to:

My partner's 2-year-old

Where does it say grandchild? It doesn't.

Quite frankly I don't give a monkeys about who would buy any gewgaw for Valentines Day.

Poundland did not place the child in danger YOU DID! A point you seem to be at pains to ignore.

Georgiegirl256

Andyjenk wrote: »

Who would buy a £1 present as a Valentine's gift??

A lot of folk buy cheap and nasty tatt on the over commercialised day that is Valentines Day. However, that snow globe is obviously aimed for Valentines Day. I don't think anyone would give that as a present for a two year old.

I do agree however that whilst shops are not a play ground and children should be supervised at all times, shops also have a responsibility to put things that could potentionally be dangerous away from grabbing little hands.

I can't believe that something which is only a pound would be made of glass though?

redcard

Andyjenk wrote: »

My partner's 2-year-old dropped one in store and it shattered

Andyjenk wrote: »

Wrong on several counts. My partner was not there. Not her child but her grandchild. Please reread the OP.

I know a previous poster has already mentioned, but just thought I'd quote for the purpose of clarity.

Why change your story? Either you don't know who the 2 year old belongs to, or you're making it up as you go along.

Georgiegirl256

Andyjenk wrote: »

Children don't generally have an interest in razors and bleach but do in glitter balls. Bleach and razors do not in my experience shatter when dropped.

No !!!! Sherlock! But they do (more the bleach I'm talking about here) cause horrific injuries if taken internally....a lot more dangerous than a snow globe.

SevenOfNine

Seems like initial warning was meant in a fairly harmless way - I wonder why some of the nastier 'responders' didn't just jog on past it!

TBH my grandsons had 2 choices when little and out shopping with me, don't touch or sit in the buggy. Now they are 4 & 5 it's simply DON'T TOUCH......and no, they do not disobey me.

Andyjenk

peachyprice wrote: »

I can't imagine.



No, really, no. Common sense suggests that a snow/glitter globe cannot be considered a toy in any way, shape or form.

The majority ARE glass, despite your ignorance of that fact, and the majority of people (excluding those like you to whom you refer above) wouldn't even consider giving one to a child to play with.

Therefore there is absolutely no need for a CE mark on this very obvious decorative ornament to protect the children of idiots whose parents would give them one to play with.

Common sense or not, look on Amazon UK. Hundreds of Glitter and Snow globes aimed specifically at CHILDREN. If they are glass then they are either sold illegally or have passed the CE Mark tests. I would guess that most are plastic.
Where do you get your information that the majority are glass?
If they are not toys then ornaments designed for children should require a CE mark.
Looking at those on Amazon UK which are intended for children can you please explain how I can tell the difference between those and the Poundland ones?
I would suggest that with modern technology there is no need for inexpensive globes to be made of glass. Expensive globes intended for serious collectors I accept possibly should be glass, but serious collectors are unlikely to want a £1 globe.

Andyjenk

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

No !!!! Sherlock! But they do (more the bleach I'm talking about here) cause horrific injuries if taken internally....a lot more dangerous than a snow globe.

Yes !!! Watson!!! Read the LABEL on a bottle of bleach. A bottle of bleach with a childproof cap is one H**L of a lot safer than a thin glass globe.

POPPYOSCAR

redcard wrote: »

I know a previous poster has already mentioned, but just thought I'd quote for the purpose of clarity.

Why change your story? Either you don't know who the 2 year old belongs to, or you're making it up as you go along.

Quite.

Shot themselves in the foot on that one!

Andyjenk

redcard wrote: »

I know a previous poster has already mentioned, but just thought I'd quote for the purpose of clarity.

Why change your story? Either you don't know who the 2 year old belongs to, or you're making it up as you go along.

Sorry, "granddaughter" got accidentally omitted from my original post. My mistake.

LilElvis

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Quite.

Shot themselves in the foot on that one!

Even if he did it would be the gun manufacturers fault for not putting a huge sticker on it warning users that firing a gun can result in injury or loss of life.