parent and child spaces in sainsbury's car park

[mockney piers]

Alan, it's called a McDonald's drive through.

[Damian H]

srisky Wrote:

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

> > 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!

Frankly, I am nor sure how tight your grip is. You are effectively objecting to a first come-first served consequence. Well I have no objection to that - let's apply it to the bigger parking spaces as well.

Re trolling behaviour - if you think I am a troll, then why are any of you engaging in this discussion?

[Loz]

srisky Wrote:

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

> Have you considered getting riled up about the [...] Women only swim sessions?

Now don't get me started on those. Really. That's whoooole new thread.

[Loz]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> 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.

I think someone previously commented that P&C parking places were for 'lazy parents with fat kids'.

[Damian H]

Loz Wrote:

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

> srisky Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Have you considered getting riled up about the

> [...] Women only swim sessions?

>

> Now don't get me started on those. Really. That's

> whoooole new thread.

go for it Loz.

[mockney piers]

Here you go

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,20,20#msg-20

Thinking about it, they were more naive times, when 4 pages was considered a protracted argument!!!

[Loz]

That was pretty much the time I joined the EDF and the debate petered out before I could get me tup'pence ha'penny worths in.

[civilservant]

No, I don't think Damian H is a troll, he puts too much misguided effort into his posts. In an early post, I agreed that he had a point in the case of the behaviour of some ED residents, but I rapidly lost sympathy when he made a breathtaking inductive leap and extended the accusation of bad behaviour to all ED parents.

I'd be quite happy to find common cause with Damian H if he increased his hate-set to include entitlement abusers such as people who sit alone at a table for 4 tapping at a keyboard and sipping at a solitary coffee while others queue and queue and queue for a table (just as bad for business owners as snotty kids with their 'Tommy Tiptrees'), people who sprawl all over the pavement outside pubs and bars with their drinks and cigs, people who insist on sharing their musical tastes unasked etc.

Howvever, he's chosen to bash a bunch of easy targets, and complain about their use of a facility that he himself doesn't use. Rational? I ask you.

[srisky]

> Frankly, I am nor sure how tight your grip is.

> You are effectively objecting to a first

> come-first served consequence. Well I have no

> objection to that - let's apply it to the bigger

> parking spaces as well.

>

> Re trolling behaviour - if you think I am a troll,

> then why are any of you engaging in this

> discussion?

I have a firm grip on reality, so much so that I can not seem to get remotely incensed about this topic in the way you have. I was reading it out of interest & bewilderment.

- Parent & child parking spaces are for parents with children in tow - as there are plenty of 'normal' parking spaces, which are adequate in size

- Silver swim sessions for people over a certain age - as there are plenty of other sessions to attend

- Child-free section in the Dulwich Park cafe, only for adults - as there is a section for those with children.

I am happy to respect these restrictions, as I don't think anyone is really being inconvenienced, discriminated against or having there human rights violated by them. Whilst they remain then people are 'entitled' to use them as intended. However, I'm sure we will all cope if they are removed.

Everyone should be respectful of each other (which includes respecting the restrictions of parent & child spaces to parents with children) and, as I have said before, inconsiderate behaviour is not just demonstrated by those with children. Ah, for such a utopia.

Over and out (for now).

[DaveR]

Damian, could I ask you not to post on this topic quite so frequently, and at such length? The forum is a valuable resource designed to be used by the whole community and the space on the servers is not unlimited, you know.

Also, in your next post, could you describe yourself, including any distinguishing marks, so that parents who may be reading will be able to avoid you if they see you out and about (purely out of a desire not to offend, you understand)? 'Sore hands' are probably not sufficiently visually distinctive.

[edcam]

That'll really calm him down DaveR - well done!

[peckhamboy]

I assume from his posts that DamianH is self-employed, and has to use free wifi in cafes to do his work because he can't afford internet at home. At the risk of inflaming the situation, may I suggest that were he to spend more time actually working and less time crafting (I use the word loosely) lengthy dissertations on The Selfishness of Parents, he might actually be able to afford his own internet access and thus spare himself the hideousness of daily contact with the food-throwing offspring of The Entitled Middle Classes of East Dulwich?

Incidentally, I agree with him that much of the behaviour he describes at great length (blocking pavements, not acknowledging an opened door) can be considered rude, antisocial and possibly even in some cases offensive. But in no way can it be considered the sole preserve of parents of young children, and in no way can it be considered a feature of parents of young children. Ultimately, there are rude, antisocial and offensive people of all shapes and sizes and they will behave that way irrespective of whether they have children. Perhaps if Damian were to aim his fire at rude people generally, he would get more support on here. There is of course a risk that he would have to turn his fire on himself if he did that though.

[mockney piers]

And onwards to Page 11.

Who'd have thunk it eh, parking spaces and fois gras of greater import than the recent riots.

God I love East Dulwich ;)

[civilservant]

I think the 'I love Waitrose' thread ran to many more pages. If we added in all the anti-Coop and Somerfield threads, we'd have something that rivals War and Peace for length and complexity, if not sheer excitement. Whooo!

We did though on other posts discuss the riots with much vim and vigour (and lack of the forum equivalent of politely holding doors open for others). See where that got some of us - booted off to lurk in Sydenham and other bits of darkest SE London.

[Damian H]

Straw man after straw man after straw man - it really beggars belief.

Firsly, civilservant, I have never accused 'all' ED parents of behaving in this way, so I have no idea where you get that from. Secondly, I do not have s 'hate-set' including any group whatsoever. I have frustration with various elements of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour which I have elaborated upon. I suspect there are a vast number of people who object to various types of self-absorbed behaviour without that representing 'hate'. Again, I wonder if we have some projecion going on here?

The other aspects of anti-social behaviour you identify, I also object to but they are not related to this thread so why would I have brought them up? In terms of working at laptops in coffee houses, I have always been very aware of what table space is available and have often moved to a smaller table myself or left a cafe if there is a queue and I am not spending enough to justify a table. That has been apreciated and recognised by the owners and I suspect if others I have mentioned were as considerate to the interests of staff and customers things would be considerably improved.

"Bashing an easy target"? Firstly I am not bashing anyone - I have set out an opinion and defended it in response to attacks, insults and some pretty disgusting group bulying behaviour on here. If anyone has been 'bashed' it is me and I am not at all sorry if you don't like the fact that I have pushed back. Evidently you thought I was an easy target who wouldnt stand up for an opinion and I am not at all sorry if it has surprised you to find out that is not the case.

Complaining about the use of a facility I don't use? Well, since when did a person only have a right to an opinion on something that directly affected them. If we applied that principle to the whole Forum we could probably halve the number of posts in any thread.

PeckhamBoy - I have an office with wifi and a dongle as well but sometimes I currently (and very often historically) used local wifi enabled venues for variety or necessity. Also in terms of me being 'rude', I would love you to point out where I have been rude, other than briefly by returning a specific insult to the sender in response to being personally insulted? I appreciate that some people categorise firmly stating an opinion they don't like as rudeness but I don't think that really fits the dictionary definition.

I think the most risible comments, however, are the objections to the number of posts I have made. I think if you will look back over this whole thread you will find they are commensurate wth the number of insults, criticisms etc that have been levelled at me by a swarm of different posters. To object to my posts is effectively to say "Damian H, why won't you keep quiet and say nothing when we gang up to bash you?" I think the answer is self-evident. If you don't want a dog to bark stop poking it with a stick!

I do realise the main objection you have is the fact that someone has a different opinion to you, is not afraid to voice it and has thrown most of your points back in your face. Not a comfortable experience for people who expect a local concensus on such matters and think they should be able to shout down, insult, brow-beat and generally intimidate a dissenting voice. Well...tough!

[mockney piers]

Seriously, and I dread to think how often ive given this advice, but take a step back from the thread.

Just let it lie for a while and allow it do digest like a good meal.

Sometimes you need to take a step back from these things.

No one is ganging up or brow beating and certainly no bullying, though it does look to me like there is quite a bit of teasing going on.

Sometimes with discussions like this it's easy to lose sight of the wood for the trees, and you've backed yourself into a corner, ...mmm...of woody trees presumably, so have a stroll, leave this thread (cornery wood thread) altogether and enjoy the evening sunshine.

Have a glass of wine, watch episode five of the hour and see you tomorrow.

Just my advice like, no need to follow it.

[Senor Chevalier]

Here?s how I see it.

-Sainsburys own the car park

-They chose to provide it

-They can administer it however they like (subject to any planning restrictions)

-They have designated certain spaces as mother and baby or whatever, and as users of their carpark we should follow their rules

-We can vote with our feet if we don?t like it or write to them to protest

I think the OP was upset by people flouting the rules and I agree such flouters are being inconsiderate both to the intended users and to Sainsburys.

Polite people (that hold open doors even if they have no children or car) would probably tut at the lack of consideration being extended by such flouters.

However, I think the reason for the longevity of this thread is that it has moved on to a wider issue (please let there be a point to all this) being that of entitlement and courtesy.

When M?n?B spaces were first introduced I?m sure mothers struggling with shopping and pushchair were very pleased and though ?what a good and helpful idea?.

The reference point was no special treatment and the M?n?B spaces were an improvement and a reason to be grateful

However now M?n?B spaces are now just part of the deal. They are assumed. A given. Nobody thinks about how lucky they are to have the facility and when they are removed rage ensues.

How did something so helpful that was a benefit become such an entitlement leading to such rage?

Let?s take the case of the terrible Organix tent blocking 3 M?n?B spaces.

So Sainsburys are still providing (I assume) an upside to mothers with babies, just slightly less of it than before.

Would stepping back and thinking about how lucky we are (as suggested in one of DH?s essays) rather than taking the status quo for granted be such a bad idea?

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the response to the Organix saga had been more along the lines of:

?How disappointing that Sainsburys chose to block off3 spaces with an Organix tent. The M?n?B spaces are a real help for me and it is ever so much more difficult when we don?t have them. Just goes to show it is just marketing for Sainsbos and was only worth doing until they found an even better marketing opportunity?

I think that overall people who are shown a courtesy should show gratitude, whether in car park, street or caf? and those that don?t are rude and arrogant.

I?m sure most people on here are polite and do show their gratitude and nobody has any truck with them. It is ONLY those that don?t that wind people up.

So which camp are you in?

Camp 1 - nice considerate people that childless folk will happily indulge; or

Camp 2 - arseholes that think the world revolves around them.

Clearly this is broader than children and applies to courtesy generally. It just cropped up on this thread and I guess as a cohort, people with young children are pretty well represented in ED and on this forum, frequently indulged and whilst they often are they do not always seem grateful.

I think we should collectively concoct a voluntary code of ethics for the M?n?B spaces. My thoughts to kick off the discussion:

-Mother or Father should have baby with them at time of use

-Those without baby should not show hostility to those using M?n?B spaces

-Those using the spaces should beam at others in a grateful but not smug way

-Children above 5 don?t count unless they have special needs

-Those that disagree on principle to the provision of M?n?B spaces should take this up with Sainsburys and abide by the rules pending any change in policy

Edited twice before anyone read it due to a tricky sentence.

[civilservant]

Sainsbury's has to sign up to the contract as well. So we should add this clause

- Sainsbury's must refrain from blocking use of M'n'B spaces by Organix tents and other obstructions

[the-e-dealer]

I'd like to make disabled bays statutory with clamping and towing away

[Otta]

Personally I don't see any real need for these parking spaces, but equally, if they are there, I'm not going to criticise people for using them.

Earlier someone suggested that parents should be able to use disabled spaces. That is just an absolute nonsense!

[louloulabelle]

Why do so many of you assume that rude behaviour goes hand in hand with those of us that have to have children in tow? I come across plenty of rude people day in day out both with and without a buggy, or using (or not as the case may be) a Parent and Child parking space or the 'kids' side of Dulwich Cafe or the 'adults' side of Dulwich Cafe.

I dont expect a car space to be laid on for me, but i will use it if it's there as it's damn hard getting a car seat in/out in a normal size space sometimes and equally hard getting a toddler in and out of a cramped door space because someone has parked far closer to you since you left your car then when you parked it... I will use the 'kids' side of a cafe so as not to inconvenience those who don't want my children flinging chips at them.. (sorry, hummous and pitta, we are in dulwich...), i dont expect doors to be opened for me and the double buggy, i dont expect anyone to help me and the buggy up or down steps or onto trains or buses. I am quite capable of holding a door open for someone else even with buggy, scooter and 3 shopping bags.

BUT i can be rude and intolerable when so many people jump on their high horses over something so trivial as PARKING SPACES.

It's equally not hard for those without children to park further into the car park. Supermarkets provide these spaces to lure in parents with kids who have to do the weekly shop with them in tow to try to make the horrid experience that is food shopping with toddlers a little less hassle by not having to traverse the car park and its perils with children darting all around you because you can't always have them tethered to you and yes you do need the extra space either side.

Now, surely we all have more to do in our lives than fight over who has the right to park in spaces that are on private land and have been designated for a specific sector by that company but dont police it so it doesnt matter a who har who parks in it anyway!.

love and peace x

[PipD]

Don?t know if this has been mentioned (you leave this thread alone for half an hour and another 3 pages have been added, it?s difficult to keep up) but Oragnix is organic baby food. So surely it?s right that the display is put on the parent and child spaces, no? (runs for cover...)

[mockney piers]

way to let a thread die there otta!!

[Otta]

Heh

Had I not posted, we wouldn't have had that very nice post from louloulabelle.

[jollybaby]

Now when on holiday in France this Year I came across designated bays for pregnant women . . . Gasp! Can you imagine if we had these in ED sainsbos they'd need to use half the car park. They also had signs by the disabled bays which read 'if you take my space you can take my disability too' which I thought was pretty good.