mako

I would have thought anyone who has time to be offended by a free magazine totally lacking in anything offensive is actually their target audience.

To be fair i think Edcam and Poker were trying to give constructive advice

I think it had stopped until you posted

Two adults 'threatened' by what sounds like unfit old jogger flipping the finger, and offence increased as a 10 month old in the car who would have no idea what happened. Hilarious. 'I pulled into it whilst managing to avoid him' not exactly the same as the OP 'waiting for thirty seconds'. Clearly he has taken offence by you driving too near him. Not sure what the 'heroic amd admirable defence' was either

Surely the 1% is saved for those who were already told not to park there but couldnt be bothered to move?

Why did the manager agree to cancel to the ticket?

anyone who has driven to a supermarket before knows that those spaces will be child/disabled. I suggest it is more a case of those like the OP who cause the trouble. Surprised that the disabled users havent come in for stick yet from the WUMs. Only I sometimes worry that those like Buddug arent wumming and really are so selfish.

If its the busiest bit its because lots of parents looking for spaces as they all believe they are safer/better. so answer is probably need more parent spaces

Only parent and disabled user cars need to go down that lane near the shop so it shouldnt be the busiest bit of the car park. even if it is is the busiest put then further away and they need to walk in a less busy bit AND the busy bit which is obviously worse

Buddug is just a WUM anyway. Posted the same thread about a ticket at Liddl last year.

uncleglen. The spaces aren't near the entrance because parents are unfit you numpty. its to avoid the need for children to be walking through a busy car park where singletons reverse at high speed in a hurry to get back to their interesting lives.

As i typed before. Walk on the path. It is not made of grass.

By track i mean the tarmac road. The path is the bit with the kirbstones which goes around most of road.

in fact your quoting of byelaws goes back to my point about football pitches and playgrounds.You are allowed to picnic on the football pitch, you can play football in the playground, you can walk your dog on the only bit where cyclists can go. But in taking this inconsiderate stance you lose your rights to moan if things arent perfect for you when you do so.

First Mate, you often make some very good points however despite your call for consideration for others, when it comes down to it you let yourself down by joining the 'I have rights brigade'. It is not about a legal right it is about showing some consideration for others. cyclists, buggies etc need the tarmac. You and your dog dont. So keep off or stop moaning and please dont avoid the questions you cant answer such as where it is not possible to use the path or simply cross the tarmac to get to a dog area as this weakens your more valid posts. Cyclists obviously should slow down or give a wide berth to mums or dads pushing buggies, they shouldnt need to to dogs or their owners because they dont need to be there. Why go on the track. GO ON THE PATH

Mako, areas of the park to which dog owners can have access with dogs on lead would be inaccessible without some use of the track, This is not true. There is a path. What bit of the park do you need to walk on the road (walk on not cross) to get to. There isnt one. Dog owners may use the track with dogs on lead,anywhere, any time, they have as much right to be there as any other park user. As you know the point I am making is that they shouldnt have as much right to be there as they do not need to be there to walk their dogs. They can use the paths or the grass. On a personal note to avoid being startled get off the track. Use the path or grass. Cyclists need the hard surface as do roller skaters, buggy pushers etc. you do not so be aware of others, or stop moaning that cyclists are cycling near you.

The point i am making is that in most areas different users have priority. Dog walkers complaining about cyclists on the track do not need to be there, so shouldnt complain if a cyclist comes close to them. The point about the other areas is that it is accepted that these are for particular users, whereas the dog walkers see themselves as equal users of the track which I dont think they should.

Parks are shared spaces but not all type of users should have equal use of all parts. The playground is clearly for children, the marked football pitches for playing football and the track area is primarily for disabled car drivers, cyclists, roller skaters etc who cannot use any other part of the park. It is not primarily for those walking dogs who have plenty of other areas to walk their dogs. For starters they could start by using the areas where there is a path rather than the track. saying to cyclists they cant go fast is comparable to saying dogs can come but shouldnt run fast.

Nasty, but very rare indeed. Not that rare as 150 people a week are hospitalised from dog bites on average in uk, a numnber that is rising and obviously must only be a fraction of the number who are actually bitten but not hospitalised.

As some people have mentioned it isnt always large animals that bite and the jack russell that bit my father in law certainly wasnt big but did a huge amount of damage. Taper, muzzling is not cruel and if trained properly with an appropriate muzzle should be no different to getting your dog to wear a dog coat as this article suggests http://www.endangereddogs.com/EDDRMuzzlingAdvice.htm

'Mako, fear of the unknown is a normal biological instinct but learning about potentially harmful things enables us to give our fears a rational context,'. I agree I learnt about potentially harmful dogs when my father in law was attacked by a jack russell last year whilst out running and as well as twenty stitches required he had 4 months of skin grafts. I still see no reason why all dogs shouldnt be muzzled in public areas.

Sue Dont let anyone tell you that you have a phobia. A fear of unknown dogs is entirely rational, and dogs should obviously be muzzled in public areas. Many on this thread completely miss the point about the reaction of the owner and will take a 'pro' dog atance whenever any thread is posted about dogs and try and pick at small bits of the post rather than the key points. the dog was not under control, was therefore potentially dangerous and therefore the owenrs reaction was very poor.

I would say ince's form and influence around 1993 was greater than scholes ever reached. Scholes was obviously better to watch and gets credit as mentioned for sustained performance and loyalty. But Ince around that time was immense.

Agree with Keanes sentiments above. Giggs' greatness came from longevity rather than being the best player. Both Sharpe and Kanchelskis had better periods than Giggs ever did, but obviously depends what your best team means. As a long term manager Giggs as good as it gets performing at the top for so long. But for one season if i could have a player on their top form sharpe/kanchelskis and ince would def be in instead of giggs and scholes. 'Best' manager not so clear as think Fergie did what clough did for longer. Fergies ruthlessness unlikely to make him a players favourite but from a clubs point of view no one will ever be better.

I am in the 'for the charity shop' group and surprised by the negative reaction to it