parent and child spaces in sainsbury's car park

[katie1997]

"Good afternoon"

"Could I interest anyone in an e-petition or failing that, we have a very nice line in 'I blame the bankers' t-shirts?"

Back on topic though, didn't Horsebox sum it up nicely about sixty five or so posts ago?

[srisky]

Damian H Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> srisky Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Gosh, since I am a stay at home mum and go to

> the

> > local cafes to meet my friends with children, I

> > hadn't actually stopped to think that some of

> the

> > people there working on laptops and taking

> > advantage of the free Wi-fi (clearly not

> supplied

> > for the benefit of toddlers) may actually be

> > hard-working self employed people who find it

> > extremely difficult to focus when my two year

> old

> > is screaming because I am ignoring him or is

> > repeatedly banging his Tommy Tiptree mug on the

> > table."

> >

> > If you 'chose' to work in a public place (other

> > than the library) then I don't think you can

> > complain about the noise from other patrons. I

> > appreciate not everyone can afford to have the

> > internet at home but that's another topic.

>

> So if I decided to stick my iphone on speaker and

> blast out a bit of hip-hop no-one would be

> entitled to ask me to turn it down or off? After

> all, if someone goes to a cafe or bar and everyone

> is entitled to act with complete disregard for

> others there is no reason why I should not play

> mymusic if I want to.

Your arguments are becoming more irrational.

A patron using the free wifi in a cafe can not expect others to quieten down, because they want to concentrate on their own work - it doesn't matter if they are a a group of adults having a lively discussion, mums with babies, teenagers listening to the latest tracks on their iphone.

As just commented, the free wifi is a marketing gimick deisgned to lure such patrons into the establishments. If the establishment had a quiet/child-free area then I am sure most parents would not take their children in there, nor would they have cause to complain if they were asked to leave that section. The child-free section in the Dulwich Park cafe is respected as such.

The parent & child parking in Sainsbury's may well be a marketing ploy, just like the free wifi. Why can't it be left to those with young children, in a similar way that those with children do not go into child-free areas?

It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be annoyed if a designanted area is being used by someone for who it's not intended. Of course, there is a sense of entitlement - just like those in a child-free area are entitled to use it without children being there.

Have you considered getting riled up about the family swimming sessions? Women only swim sessions? Silver swim sessions?

People of different ages and different abilities need adaptations in society for their own safety, well being and, where possible, comfort. And why not the latter, if it's not at the detriment of others? If parents are offered a slightly wider parking space, if it's near the entrance, why does it really matter to you? If it helps them to get young children safely in/out of their cars and through the car park, then so be it. I'd understand your argument if parking spaces were few and far between or they decided replace all the disabled parking spots with parent/child parking.

It appears that some people seem to think that children are a nuisance (should be seen and not heard), which is a real shame. If society looks after them then they will become the adults that you would want looking after you in your old age.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking where you like on their property? You are entitled to park anywhere and ignore their wishes. Anyone who suggests otherwise is self centred and has a terrible sense of entitlement.

[Threadhead]

In France disabled parking spaces have a sign saying, "want my space? Want my disability?"

Perhaps Sainsburys could follow suit with "want my space? Want my kids?"

If ED children are as appalling as some posters seem to think, it should do the trick.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So taking a space reserved for parents with children, when you have none, is not an inconsiderate act but justifiable revenge for the perceived selfishness of (all?) parents. Or is it righteous justice for someone failing to thank you for holding a door open? I never realised that taking a parking space that is a little closer to the supermarket was a political act, but I?m starting to see it now....

[Damian H]

Amoeba Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian H, since the parking spaces are just one of

> seemingly many manifestations of the "whingeing

> entitlement" that you are so keen to whinge about,

> why not start up a new thread along the lines of

> "All those with children think they are better

> than me, but actually I'm better than them". You

> could include your top 10 things that others do or

> stand for which you, of course, are too good a

> person not to. Perhaps then we could really get

> to the bottom of your issue with people who do not

> live how you want them to, or perhaps benefit from

> something that you are not able to benefit from.

>

> Whilst I am all in favour of "live and let live",

> you do rather come across as "live and let live on

> my terms" which is considerably less appealing.

>

> As for the parent and child spaces, for whatever

> the reason, they are as they are and so should be

> respected as such. If you have a problem with

> them, talk to Sainsbury's. If you have a problem

> with the sense of entitlement that parents have

> when it comes to using them....don't. Of course

> they feel entitled, they are parent and child

> spaces.

Amoeba, your post is uninentionally hilarious. Unlike Indiana I will actually tell you why I find it so funny.

You have COMPLETELY inverted the situation and accused me of doing what I am objecting to others doing. I have not attempted to tell others people how to live at all. On the contrary I have poined out that there is a prevalent group of people in ED who insist on behaving selfishly in the manner that THEY choose, who expect to have the right to extend their own living and kindergarten space out into the local community and act in it with absolutely no consideration for the effect that such behaviour has on other users of local amenities and facilities.

When the impact that their unboundaried behaviour has on the comfort, opportunities and enjoyment of other people they share the space with is pointred out to them, they respond with indigantion and arrogance that their ability to do what they d**n well please wherever they please has been questioned. So who is expecting others to conform to their agenda? Certainly not me.

What I am sugesting is that this group exhibit a degree of consideration and respect for the rights, interests and comfort of others rather than simply trampelling over them or attacking anyone who does not adhere to their lifestyle.

It is very telling when we look at the responses of those on this thread. They have typified exactly the arrogance I have referred to. Not the slightest ounce of self-awareness or consideration of the fact that there are others who are inconvenienced by the behaviour identified. Simply a selfish, arrogant, dismissive attitude to others who are attempting to use the same space which they also pay for in ways that suit their needs and desires. Rather than taking a step backwards to reflect on their own behaviour and ask a few searching personal questions, the attitude has been to gang up, insult, attempt to ridicule and attack someone wo speaks on behalf of a significant group who have a very different experience of living in ED. Alternatively, rather than expandedtheir awareness a little, they engage in risibly stupid and childish assertions that I want to ban families and children from ED or engage in some sort of criminal cull or have feelings of hatred to children. Then they engage in transparent projection when, evidently nfuriated by a worldview different from theirs, they accuse me of being enraged or furious. And you have the gall to accuse me of trying to impose on others how they should live????

And you appear to be engaging in some amateur psycho-analysing in order to discover my "issue" and make absurd speculation about why I think what I think. Let me save yo the trouble. My issue, if you want to label it as such, is that there is a social group in ED who behave selfishly and with no consideration for others in public places in ED. They treat the local environment as if it is a giant romper room or holiday camp.

The remedy I have put forward very clearly is not that people should live as I expect them to (I have no particular expectations of any group) but that they show at least a modicum of awareness and consideration for other groups n ED who share the same space.

Frankly, I am shocked that you have managed to get my osition so hopelessly wrong.

[Loz]

Threadhead Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps Sainsburys could follow suit with "want my

> space? Want my kids?"

I'd dress up as a clown and see if the offer still holds.

[mockney piers]

"Frankly, I am shocked that you have managed to get my [p]osition so hopelessly wrong."

Is that a whooshing sound I can hear?

[Timster]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking

> where you like on their property? You are entitled

> to park anywhere and ignore their wishes. Anyone

> who suggests otherwise is self centred and has a

> terrible sense of entitlement.

Er, it's their property. It's just like asking people to take their shoes off when they come into your house.

Or was this an ironic post. I am losing track.

Damian H - I thought this was amusing to start with. The level of emotion, thought and anger invested in your posts compared to the relatively trivial issue at hand could have been scripted by Larry David. But there is a point where self-righteous rage at double buggies getting in your way stops being amusing turns into sociopathy and I think you've crossed that line. Seriously, go back and read your posts and consider whether they are the thoughts of a sane man with a grip on reality.

[Damian H]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So taking a space reserved for parents with

> children, when you have none, is not an

> inconsiderate act but justifiable revenge for the

> perceived selfishness of (all?) parents. Or is it

> righteous justice for someone failing to thank you

> for holding a door open? I never realised that

> taking a parking space that is a little closer to

> the supermarket was a political act, but I?m

> starting to see it now....

SInce I dont have a car and do not engage in such a specific act I cannot know the precise motives of those who do. However, I am pointing out that if people are not always incline to respect such requests it may to some extent be related to irritation about the self-entitled attitude exhibited by the priviledged group in general.

If you want to take specific acts completely out of the context in which they occur that is up to you, but a systemic perspective often shines light on matters with a greater degree of illumination.

If there are those without children who put up with unboundaried and selfish behaviour out and about in other parts of ED, they might well be inclined to say "sod that, they want the parking spcaes as well?" when they see 'family' parking spaces in car parks and choose to make a point. WHether that is a grand political protest as you describe (unlikely) or just a spontaneous display of pique and frustration in the heat of the moment makes very little difference to the end resul.

[StraferJack]

could have been scripted by Larry David.

a pedant notes: Larry David doesn't script Curb, it's all pretty much improvised.

ahem

As for the debate at hand. Lord spare us. Can I agree with Damian's core point that parents with kids don't need special spaces? If a company wants to provide them then goody gumdrops, I think they should be respected as such and anyone without kids who thinks they are special enough to park there is a tosser. And Damian is doing an admirable job of proving that point

But that seems about as far as one can go. To say, as a parent with children, "I need special spaces" is taking things far. For a start, those spaces are a bonus for the early birds who arrive at the right time. All the other parents still have to make do with the standard-issue space. And that's fine really isn't it? It's not that bad is it?

[Amoeba]

"(I have no particular expectations of any group). I assume this is aside from those you have laid out in previous posts.

[srisky]

> As for the debate at hand. Lord spare us. Can I

> agree with Damian's core point that parents with

> kids don't need special spaces? If a company wants

> to provide them then goody gumdrops, I think they

> should be respected as such and anyone without

> kids who thinks they are special enough to park

> there is a tosser. And Damian is doing an

> admirable job of proving that point

>

> But that seems about as far as one can go. To

> say, as a parent with children, "I need special

> spaces" is taking things far. For a start, those

> spaces are a bonus for the early birds who arrive

> at the right time. All the other parents still

> have to make do with the standard-issue space. And

> that's fine really isn't it? It's not that bad is

> it?

I don't think anyone has ever said that parents 'need' the space. Only that they are useful and, as there are only a few of them, why can't it be left for those with children?

Edit to say: before it is misconstrued, I am agreeing with you StraferJack

[Damian H]

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking

> > where you like on their property? You are

> entitled

> > to park anywhere and ignore their wishes.

> Anyone

> > who suggests otherwise is self centred and has

> a

> > terrible sense of entitlement.

>

>

> Er, it's their property. It's just like asking

> people to take their shoes off when they come into

> your house.

>

> Or was this an ironic post. I am losing track.

>

> Damian H - I thought this was amusing to start

> with. The level of emotion, thought and anger

> invested in your posts compared to the relatively

> trivial issue at hand could have been scripted by

> Larry David. But there is a point where

> self-righteous rage at double buggies getting in

> your way stops being amusing turns into sociopathy

> and I think you've crossed that line. Seriously,

> go back and read your posts and consider whether

> they are the thoughts of a sane man with a grip on

> reality.

Timster, I have read all of my posts and am well aware of the mood when I wrote them. You clearly were not and are halluinating anger when you read what I have said.

I am amused by your objection that my posts show "thought" - I would have thought that a commendable trait in advancing any opinion. If you perceive sociopathy you clearly have absolutely no knowledge of what the word actually means in any shape or form. Perhaps your contribution would benefit from further "thought".

If you detect frustration you are quite correct. The issues at hand here are not new and have been rehearsed at length bymany people in historic threads

I am also struck by the fact that you choose not to comment on any other posters here, despite the fact that their posts most certainly HAVE refelcted anger, insults, rudeness and an attempt to intimidate and harrass another poster on the forum. Why do you single out my reasoned and carefully elaborated posts and not address the offensive behaviour of others at all?

There is also an old adagae that it takes two to tango. If this thread has continued and I have posted in defence of my position and the repeated personal attacks and insults thrown at me have you perhaps considered that it may be due to the fact that others have perpetuated this issue?

Your one-sidedness in your comments is very striking indeed.

[Damian H]

Amoeba Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "(I have no particular expectations of any group).

> I assume this is aside from those you have laid

> out in previous posts.

Identify them. At best the only thing that could be qualified as an 'expectation' is that people should be mindful and considerate of others that share the same local space and amenities. If such an 'expectation' is perceived by you as being an unreasonable imposition of a world view there is somehting very wrong.

[StraferJack]

Edit to say: before it is misconstrued, I am agreeing with you StraferJack

Crikey - that makes it sound like if I thought you were disagreeing with me, Things Could Get Ugly

I might have paraphrased a whole bunch of posts, which were only trying to counter DH's odd obsession with this point - so if I have misrepresented anyone as saying they need the space, I apologise

The more I read DH's posts the more I back away slowly, turned slightly to the side

[srisky]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Edit to say: before it is misconstrued, I am

> agreeing with you StraferJack

>

> Crikey - that makes it sound like if I thought you

> were disagreeing with me, Things Could Get Ugly

>

Ha, ha, not at all personal, just mindful of the current tone of this thread!

[DaveR]

Damian, can I make it clear that I long ago stopped reading your posts other than in the most cursory way, and I do not purport to answer your arguments. I am in it purely for the entertainment value, and I'm pleased to see that this particular gift just keeps on giving.

Now, tell me again about your human rights?

[Damian H]

srisky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian H Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > srisky Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Gosh, since I am a stay at home mum and go to

> > the

> > > local cafes to meet my friends with children,

> I

> > > hadn't actually stopped to think that some of

> > the

> > > people there working on laptops and taking

> > > advantage of the free Wi-fi (clearly not

> > supplied

> > > for the benefit of toddlers) may actually be

> > > hard-working self employed people who find it

> > > extremely difficult to focus when my two year

> > old

> > > is screaming because I am ignoring him or is

> > > repeatedly banging his Tommy Tiptree mug on

> the

> > > table."

> > >

> > > If you 'chose' to work in a public place

> (other

> > > than the library) then I don't think you can

> > > complain about the noise from other patrons.

> I

> > > appreciate not everyone can afford to have

> the

> > > internet at home but that's another topic.

> >

> > So if I decided to stick my iphone on speaker

> and

> > blast out a bit of hip-hop no-one would be

> > entitled to ask me to turn it down or off?

> After

> > all, if someone goes to a cafe or bar and

> everyone

> > is entitled to act with complete disregard for

> > others there is no reason why I should not play

> > mymusic if I want to.

>

>

> Your arguments are becoming more irrational.

>

> A patron using the free wifi in a cafe can not

> expect others to quieten down, because they want

> to concentrate on their own work - it doesn't

> matter if they are a a group of adults having a

> lively discussion, mums with babies, teenagers

> listening to the latest tracks on their iphone.

>

> As just commented, the free wifi is a marketing

> gimick deisgned to lure such patrons into the

> establishments. If the establishment had a

> quiet/child-free area then I am sure most parents

> would not take their children in there, nor would

> they have cause to complain if they were asked to

> leave that section. The child-free section in the

> Dulwich Park cafe is respected as such.

>

> The parent & child parking in Sainsbury's may well

> be a marketing ploy, just like the free wifi. Why

> can't it be left to those with young children, in

> a similar way that those with children do not go

> into child-free areas?

>

> It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be

> annoyed if a designanted area is being used by

> someone for who it's not intended. Of course,

> there is a sense of entitlement - just like those

> in a child-free area are entitled to use it

> without children being there.

>

> Have you considered getting riled up about the

> family swimming sessions? Women only swim

> sessions? Silver swim sessions?

>

> People of different ages and different abilities

> need adaptations in society for their own safety,

> well being and, where possible, comfort. And why

> not the latter, if it's not at the detriment of

> others? If parents are offered a slightly wider

> parking space, if it's near the entrance, why does

> it really matter to you? If it helps them to get

> young children safely in/out of their cars and

> through the car park, then so be it. I'd

> understand your argument if parking spaces were

> few and far between or they decided replace all

> the disabled parking spots with parent/child

> parking.

>

> It appears that some people seem to think that

> children are a nuisance (should be seen and not

> heard), which is a real shame. If society looks

> after them then they will become the adults that

> you would want looking after you in your old age.

The fact that you cannot follow an argument is a reflection on ou, not a lack of rationale in my argument. I have not suggested that everyone quieten down in order to let people work on their laptops. I am pointing out that the provision of such a service as wifi is designed to facilitate a certain group of customers and is used by them for that purpose. Their needs and requirements are entitled to be balanced and respected just as much as those of other people using the venue. To expect that to be to the extent of creating a library like hush is clearly excessive and not proportionate. However, to completely disregard their needs (as is often done by those who treat such places as a nursery and show no consideration to other users such as those trying to do a bit of work) is equally unacceptable.

What you seem to be unable to grasp in your attempt to perceive only complete polarities, is that I am advocating a balance that accomodates the needs and comforts of all the groups using public spaces. I am saying that this often simply does not happen in a number of local venues due to the refusal of parents to consider the needs of other users. A certain group views their needs (often merely whims)as being paramount and ignore whether they are preventing other users of amenities and facilities geting their needs met. My analogy is that allowing children to run riot, have tantrums, play noisily with toys and cutlery etc (when if said parents took a moment to look around them and see how it affects others) is as selfish and inconsiderate as someone sitting in such a venue and playing their music loudly to the detriment and constenation of others. It is quite simply pig ignorant and ill-mannered.

Re women only gym sessions - I am opposed to them unless similar provision would be made for male patrons. Effectively if a local leisure centre ran a woman-only day once a week, male tax and rate payers ould be paying exactly the same contribution for only 85% of the service. There is a term for such a thing - gender discrimination - and when it happens to the disadvantage of women it is generallyconsidered a 'bad thing'.

[srisky]

I am pointing out that the provision of such a service as wifi is designed to facilitate a certain group of customers and is used by them for that purpose

Quite, as are the parent & child parking spaces.

[srisky]

If there are those without children who put up with unboundaried and selfish behaviour out and about in other parts of ED, they might well be inclined to say "sod that, they want the parking spcaes as well?" when they see 'family' parking spaces in car parks and choose to make a point

Perhaps the parents are retaliating, because someone without a child parked in the parent & child spaces?

It sounds like your losing insight into your argument.

[Damian H]

srisky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am pointing out that the provision of such a

> service as wifi is designed to facilitate a

> certain group of customers and is used by them for

> that purpose

>

> Quite, as are the parent & child parking spaces.

The fundamental difference is that no-one who goes to use the wifi attempts to prevent other people using the same space for their different purposes. They wish to share the space for different purposes.

In the case of larger parking spaces, however, one group wishes to use them exclusively and prevent any other group having use of them - read back to the opening post, for heaven's sake!!!

[srisky]

> The fundamental difference is that no-one who goes

> to use the wifi attempts to prevent other people

> using the same space for their different purposes.

> They wish to share the space for different

> purposes.

>

> In the case of larger parking spaces, however, one

> group wishes to use them exclusively and prevent

> any other group having use of them - read back to

> the opening post, for heaven's sake!!!

These wifi users take the best spot in the cafe from the moment it opens and sit there all day, so I can't sit in my favourite seat and have a coffee.

Get a grip!

[Alan Medic]

What's the conclusion then?

I was just wondering if Sainsbury's would consider making special parking spaces for the obese. It would be a good way of tapping into the obese market.

[mockney piers]

I have to say I dismissed DH as a troll quite quickly, but a swift peruse of posting history looks otherwise normal, meaning this is either one of many accounts created as sleepers by a sophisticated troller, or s/he actually gets that irate by parent-child spaces, the odd buggy or cranky child in a cafe.

And worryingly I now think it's the latter, otherwise rational and loses all perspective and civility and slips into trollish behaviour for this one topic.

My advice would be to look past the children. Most parents are quite polite as are most people. All walks of life can be dismissive, selfish or oblivious to others. At a pinch parents might be more likely to be so, distracted as they are in attempts to make sure their children haven't run under a passing car, but then this should surely call for empathy not rage.

I bend over backwards to be courteous to people, especially when with buggie or child, well aware as I am of the prevalence of opinions like Damian's, and am amzed at the lack of any acknowledgement i get from people, with or without buggies, but I guess that's just living in a big city full of rude people. It has a billion pros but m,ore than a ferw cons.

I suggest candles, soft music and a bath damian. And breaaaathe....