Victim blaming mentality

cyantist

Pollycat wrote: »

According to The Metro paper the victim was 'clear about his allergy to peanuts' so assuming that the report is accurate there is no 'technicality'.

Everywhere I have read about the story it says he specified "no nuts" and the Metro articles I read said "no nuts". But if another said "no peanuts", I suspect that is probably lazy reporting by a lot of journalists. Reading further, they also specifically say that the health officials were told it was peanut-free as was the girl who suffered the earlier reaction.

I just hope this story encourages more people to make sure they have an epipen and carry it with them or keep it somewhere easily accessible. There was another case not that long ago where a guy died because he didn't want to carry his epipen with him when he went out.

antrobus

cyantist wrote: »

...Although the restaurant owner deserved jail, I am surprised they secured a conviction. He substituted the nut powder for one that actually contained no nuts at all. The poor guy specified no nuts, and that's what he got. He apparently mentioned nothing about there being no peanuts in his meal, only no nuts.

I appreciate this is me being pedantic, but I think people need to be clearer on these issues as it's a case of life and death for people involved.

To be uber-pedantic, almonds are not nuts either. They are the seeds of drupes. If you are a botanist, that is.

Of course, if you are running a restaurant, that doesn't matter, what does matter is that both peanuts and almonds are on the list of allergens that now have to be disclosed.

NewShadow

Constantly steering things away away from the OP in order to nit pick holds grounds for no decent discussion and becomes tedious very quickly.

Have a lovely day

So you are not a compassion giver then?

Facts and practical advise are great and helpful - if that is what is given. There is a world of difference between facts and practical advise opposed to being unhelpful

The tiny mind comment, I do find folk who victim blame to be small minded yes. If you want to take ownership of that title that is up to you - but is not a title I would have bestowed upon you

Is it just me that's finding an awful lot of comments on this thread to be very passive aggressive?

System

This board is nuts

All this type of stuff does is build hate and i know because i was stupid enough to get myself involved with it!

Everyone needs to chill out and spread the love

Pollycat

Spinkz wrote: »

This board is nuts

All this type of stuff does is build hate and i know because i was stupid enough to get myself involved with it!

Everyone needs to chill out and spread the love

I know your history.
I believe you posted that you changed your email address to some bizarre one that you'd never remember & set your password to similar so you would never be able to log on again.
Ho Hum.
The point is that this is not a 'happy clappy' 'touchy feely' website so don't try to turn it into one.
People ask for advice & they might not like what advice they get.
It's how things are on t'internet.

suki1964

I think that most people think nuts and include peanuts

I've worked in the catering trade for the past ten years and seriously, we need to know the ingredients of everything. We buy in and we have to label every meal on the menu as being fit for vegans, vegetarians, gluten free, nut free etc etc

for example we can not sell chips as gluten free as we may at busy time use the same fryer for something containing flour

We can only offer two sauces as gluten free as the others have a gravy powder base

Even when making a sauce to order I have to ask is cornflower ok ( if not they can wait a while till the sauce thickens naturally )

We talk to our customers. We don't take risks.

silverwhistle

Guest101 wrote: »

'Victim Blaming' is a set of buzz words, I find it is designed solely to illicit a strong reaction. There's a massive difference between actual 'victim blaming' - ie you deserved to get attacked

and offering practical advice: don't walk home alone, it puts you in danger.

People need to take some responsibility for their situations

Depends on context. If a defence lawyer on a rape charge or a judge used the argument against me I'd be livid and it would be victim blaming (or if my jeans were too tight etc. etc.).

If practical advice is backed by help with the taxi fare, then fine, otherwise I'm afraid that as advice it's as useless as saying don't go out unless you can afford a taxi home.

Pollycat

cyantist wrote: »

Everywhere I have read about the story it says he specified "no nuts" and the Metro articles I read said "no nuts". But if another said "no peanuts", I suspect that is probably lazy reporting by a lot of journalists. Reading further, they also specifically say that the health officials were told it was peanut-free as was the girl who suffered the earlier reaction.

I just hope this story encourages more people to make sure they have an epipen and carry it with them or keep it somewhere easily accessible. There was another case not that long ago where a guy died because he didn't want to carry his epipen with him when he went out.

Not sure if you read the Metro online but in the paper yesterday (page 7 first column) it definitely said "Paul Wilson, 38, who was clear about his allergy to peanuts before ordering from Indian Garden, Easingwold".

I know this is going off-topic (but the OP did introduce this incident into the thread as a reason for starting it) but I find it shocking that this man continued to use the peanut-containing thickening agent instead of the more expensive alternative despite being warned by the supplier of the risks to peanut allergy sufferers.

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

The thing that actually prompted my OP was in part due to a news website yesterday.

There was a news article about a poor guy who had a severe peanut allergy. He had ordered a take away and let them know he was peanut allergic and not to put any in his meal. Unfortunately his request was not adhered to, and he died later that night, on his own, on his bathroom floor

Many people were saying it was his own fault. I felt moved to tears of the nasty messages that were being typed ref this news article, because the guys family would have been able to read them

These people deliberately wanted to make the families pain worse. They just had to get their tuppence worth in.

I think this ^^^^ is shocking.
I tend to do 'blunt' rather than 'there, there' but I can't understand how anyone could write something so cruel.

I have a friend who is allergic to nuts (not just peanuts) and have witnessed an attack (someone on the next table was eating pistachios) and it's frankly frightening.

NBLondon

It really does depend on the tone of the OP sometimes...


When the OP says "I did something stupid, how do I get out if it/try and fix the problem?" it doesn't help to tell them it was caused by their stupidity - they've admitted it - so offer a solution if you know one. Sadly a few people do want to jeer about how they would never have made that mistake.


When the OP says "This is happening to me, how do I stop it?" it may be valid to point out that it was caused by their own actions (inactions/omissions) and part of the solution is "Don't do that stupid thing again - learn from the mistakes".


When the OP appears to be repeatedly denying any responsibility and keeps asking the question again until they get an answer they like... Or when the OP is not actually asking for advice but only wants sympathy - that's not going to work when almost anybody can reply.


I see it a bit on the Motoring threads. Someone describes an accident/incident/road rage and asks "Who is at fault?" and "What so I do to get their insurance to pay?" then doesn't like the idea that they may have been partly at fault. Or when asked for more details - suddenly the story becomes inconsistent or other elements come to light which do suggest the OP in that case was partly or wholly to blame.


When 6 different people are telling you are wrong - consider that you might be wrong before you decide they are a conspiracy against you.


If you ask the question "Am I over-reacting?" - you've already considered that you are. If your family and friends have told you are over-reacting - why do you want the opinion of strangers? (I know some people don't have family and friends they can ask or their online friends are the ones they do trust - but asking an open forum is asking thousands of strangers...)

Pollycat

WOW!
^^^^^^ That's a great post. :T