Little girl injured by maniac carjacker

mikom

jackiebaron wrote: »

But you said that the car was running. You said that the engine was turned on. Now all of a sudden it's just "the keys were in the ignition"?

Aaand again......

mikom wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70209255&postcount=18

Mr NoTV

Ask the McCanns about leaving a child unattended. It's bloody serious neglect.

ScumLord

jackiebaron wrote: »

Where does it say in this article that the car was left running?
Everyone on this thread has lambasted this woman for not only leaving the children in the car for a few minutes but that she also left the car running. Why do you say that the car was running?

Why?

I did no such thing, I merely pointed out the madness of leaving a car running unattended in a city and how it makes me want to steal cars.

dashboard_hula

Not to interrupt the hysterical overreactions on both sides of the arguments, but:

A mother was running her kids to school when she stopped at the shop. She ran in for 2 minutes to grab something, and a maniac decided to carjack a car with kids in it. That's it.

Those of you who are screaming for this lady to be charged for leaving the ignition running, leaving the kids on their own, for social services to take the kids or whatever, would you mind giving your own mothers a ring and asking if they've ever left you in the car while going into the shop at 9 in the morning. Because mine certainly did, and by no means was my mother unfit or negligent.

That woman had her child assaulted and her other child kidnapped by some lunatic on a mission. To be quite honest, I get the feeling a locked door wouldn't have made one iota of a difference to the f*cking idiot who decided to carjack a woman on the school run.

Mr NoTV

It wouldn't have happened if she'd taken the children out of the car, the keys out of the ignition, locked the car and all gone into the shop together. There seems to be an attempt to defend a lackadaisical approach to parental obligations here.

dashboard_hula

Mr NoTV wrote: »

It wouldn't have happened if she'd taken the children out of the car, the keys out of the ignition, locked the car and all gone into the shop together. There seems to be an attempt to defend a lackadaisical approach to parental obligations here.

To put into context, an 11 year old is one year before Confirmation, and 2 years before starting secondary school. Well old enough to supervise a younger child in a car while the parent runs in for 2 minutes. Certainly the more desireable option than having both of them in the shop looking for sweets, taytos etc while trying to get them to school on time.

The point is, a man stole the car with a child inside after attacking the little girl with a screwdriver. It could have happened anywhere, at any time. Aiming blame at the mother for simply making the best decision with the time constraints and knowledge of the layout of the shop, local area and knowing that the kids were ok for 2 minutes is not productive and not right either.

dark crystal

k_mac wrote: »

Denise Bolger did not leave her son alone. She lost him. It was not a deliberate act on her part. Bringing her into this discussion is ridiculous. Losing a child is not nearly the same as abandoning one.

She did leave her son alone - she went into a butchers shop and left him outside the door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

I'm comparing these stories, because by some people's logic, Denise Bulger should be held just as responsible for the actions of the criminals who decided to kidnap her son as the lady in this story is.
The fact this carjacker didn't end up crashing the stolen car and killing the two year old is a fortunate stroke of luck. He also left the poor mite at the side of the road, where he easily could have been killed.

By your reasoning, you can't claim neglect and abandonment for one and not the other, can you?

Mr NoTV

dashboard_hula wrote: »

To put into context, an 11 year old is one year before Confirmation, and 2 years before starting secondary school. Well old enough to supervise a younger child in a car while the parent runs in for 2 minutes. Certainly the more desireable option than having both of them in the shop looking for sweets, taytos etc while trying to get them to school on time.

Staggering ! Thankyou for the explanation as to how a parent could leave their CHILDREN (not one but plural - and 11 is a child, confirmation matter not here) unattended for any amount of time in the street. Perhaps the idea of taking the kids to school first was an impossible idea?

The defence of foolish behaviour does not make it right, even though it was an error of judgement. She (and the children) were lucky.

Like previous posters, I leave tonight in disbelief, it has become a farce.

dashboard_hula

Ah c'mere, the view must be lovely from that high horse you're on.

jackiebaron

Mr NoTV wrote: »

It wouldn't have happened if she'd taken the children out of the car, the keys out of the ignition, locked the car and all gone into the shop together. There seems to be an attempt to defend a lackadaisical approach to parental obligations here.

And how the FÜCK do you know that? You have a crystal ball all of a sudden? Guarantee you this.....you're screeching about leaving the car unlocked, yet I bet the farm if the car was locked and a kid suffocated you'd STILL point the finger at the mother saying she should have known better or some such sh1t and should have left it unlocked.

So, with regards to "parental obligations", when do you think it's ok to leave an 11 year old unattended? When, as an 11 year old, have you been left unsupervised and under what circumstances? When have you left your own 11 year old unattended (if you have one)?


Keep beating the drum for this mother to be done for negligence but you know full well that she has done nothing .... and I mean NOTHING that your own mothers haven't done when you were children.

"She's an idiot" FÜUUUUUUUCK OFF!!

mikom

"Loud noises"

Micky Dolenz

jackiebaron, tone it down or don't bother posting.

jackiebaron

Mr NoTV wrote: »

Staggering ! Thankyou for the explanation as to how a parent could leave their CHILDREN (not one but plural - and 11 is a child, confirmation matter not here) unattended for any amount of time in the street. Perhaps the idea of taking the kids to school first was an impossible idea?

The defence of foolish behaviour does not make it right, even though it was an error of judgement. She (and the children) were lucky.

Like previous posters, I leave tonight in disbelief, it has become a farce.

I've asked this question countless times already. How did you get to school everyday at age 11? Were you escorted? How did you return? Escorted? Were there any other 11 year olds making the trip on their own? Did you ever go unaccompanied ANYWHERE when you were 11? You know...in public? In the street? Did you EVER spend a few minutes minding a toddler at this age or did your mother drop everything and walk you all to the shops under armed guard every time she needed milk?

Because if you, as an 11 year old were under 24/7 supervision then I could imagine life must be quite stifling for you.....or maybe now that you are no longer under such close surveillance you must feel quite free.

So when exactly were you left to your own devices in public? At what age did you do something or go somewhere by yourself?

MagicSean

I just can't understand how you can keep ignoring the fact that it was not just an eleven year old that was left alone.

cruiser178

Victor wrote: »

If you were a garda, are you sure you'd engage in an all-out shoot-out with a 2-year old believed to be in the back of the car.

but the 2 yro was not in the car when the cop shot 2 rounds at the driver,did you read any of the links to this thread,but besides that are the armed response just a bad shot or did they just shoot to scare,,,what do you think?

Jesus Wept

jackiebaron wrote: »

This isn't a case of neglect for Christ's sake! The daughter is ELEVEN. I've taken the train from Dublin to Mallow to my Granny's on my own at this age. Is my mother guilty of neglect? Everyone on this forum has been left to their own devices at age 11 whether it be, like I mentioned earlier, to go into town to hang around, to go fishing, to cycle to the beach/park/hills for a day mucking around. At age 10 my mother and father would give me a pound when they were doing Christmas shopping at Northside Shopping Centre to fúck off and buy something for myself.

Of course I could have been robbed, abducted or whatever. I could also have been murdered when I'm tucked up in my bed.

Pathetically pointing the finger of neglect at this mother is fücking weak.

Not a single thing you have said relates to what happened.

worded

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Absolutley disgusting behaviour by the mother, she was in the shop at 920 in the morning whilst on the school run. Surely her children were already twenty minutes late. LOCK HER UP!

She was always concerned for her kids
http://www.funnyandjokes.com/mother-worries-noise-from-jackhammers-may-harm-her-unborn-child.html

jackiebaron

k_mac wrote: »

I just can't understand how you can keep ignoring the fact that it was not just an eleven year old that was left alone.

I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm not ignoring it at all. People (you included) are trying to imply that this mother left a 2 year old,.....and a 2 year old ALL ALONE, in a car. She didn't. The woman left a two year old in a car with a 10 year old and an 11 year old....children who are quite capable of keeping an eye on a 2 year old for the amount of time it takes to run into a shop, get your sh!t, and return. What's that...2? 3 minutes maybe?

So don't try and say that I've ignored this fact. The mother is no more negligent than any mother who would have her 10 year old son and 11 year old daughter take their 2 year old toddler brother down to the park to feed the fücking ducks.

Now with that in mind, I'm quite sure that you'll start flogging the "engine running" dead horse again.

Jesus Wept

Dead horse?
It's the crux of the matter.

jackiebaron

The-Rigger wrote: »

Not a single thing you have said relates to what happened.

Are you dense?
Have you taken leave of your senses?

People on here are harping that an 11 year old should never be left unattended. I'm responding to that clarion call. My assertion may not relate to what has happened but it relates, quite emphatically, to the complaints furthered and voiced.

Did you just cherrypick a post and then throw your truck in with it?

MagicSean

A mother who allows her eleven year old to bring her two year to the park without supervision would also be a terrible parent.

Is there any particular reason you have to fit the word f##k into every post?

Rabble Rabble

TheZohan wrote: »

I suppose if you left your wallet on a pavement on a busy street and someone stole it you'd expect everyone to apport all the blame onto whoever stole it? FFS..

Yeah, I would. FFS

Rabble Rabble

Mr NoTV wrote: »

Staggering ! Thankyou for the explanation as to how a parent could leave their CHILDREN (not one but plural - and 11 is a child, confirmation matter not here) unattended for any amount of time in the street. Perhaps the idea of taking the kids to school first was an impossible idea?

The defence of foolish behaviour does not make it right, even though it was an error of judgement. She (and the children) were lucky.

Like previous posters, I leave tonight in disbelief, it has become a farce.

The only farce here is people blaming the victims of a crime for the crime. It is the "they were asking for it" defence once beloved of people who excused rapists. If only she hadnt been wearing that skirt, what does she expect. If only she hadnt left the car with her children for 2 minutes what does she expect.

i reserve the right to leave my wallet in the street and expect it to be unmolested, or handed in to the police. Or to leave my camera in a pub and expect it to be handed in. Or for a shop keeper to put his fruits and vegetables on display outside his shop and for them to not be stolen.

Take the latter, it may be stupid to do that in bad parts of town, and normal to do it in good parts of town but why should that matter to the morality of what the shopkeeper does.


In this case the woman left her children in a car for a few minutes. Thats normal and should be safe.

Has that happened to me as a kid, yes. Car parks close to shop, parent goes gets bread, comes out. The idea that anybody is negligent here, or anybody is at fault except the car-jacker who attacked a child and kidnapped another is the province of intellectual pygmies.

jackiebaron

k_mac wrote: »

A mother who allows her eleven year old to bring her two year to the park without supervision would also be a terrible parent.

Is there any particular reason you have to fit the word f##k into every post?

k_mac, if my profanity is a source of discomfort for you then I'm sorry. You're lack of latitude, however, and your penchant for blaming someone for circumstances beyond their control is not only uncomfortable but dangerous. Parents have been prosecuted or, worse, been dispossessed of their children due to the kind of pitch-fork-wielding, witch hunting that you're advocating right now.

I am not stating that children should be left alone for hours on end. What I am stating is that I find it impossible to believe that you have never been left alone at the age of 11. I find it impossible to believe that you have never been left unattended, at the age of 11, with a toddler, for what was intended to be a few minutes.

I challenge you to deny this.

MagicSean

jackiebaron wrote: »

k_mac, if my profanity is a source of discomfort for you then I'm sorry. You're lack of latitude, however, and your penchant for blaming someone for circumstances beyond their control is not only uncomfortable but dangerous. Parents have been prosecuted or, worse, been dispossessed of their children due to the kind of pitch-fork-wielding, witch hunting that you're advocating right now.

I am not stating that children should be left alone for hours on end. What I am stating is that I find it impossible to believe that you have never been left alone at the age of 11. I find it impossible to believe that you have never been left unattended, at the age of 11, with a toddler, for what was intended to be a few minutes.

I challenge you to deny this.

When I was eleven I was never put in charge of a two year old. I was never left in an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition. I never walked to the park on my own.

worded

J K wrote: »

This isn't an 'evil' contest between Screwdriver Man and Mom.
We all know he's a toe rag.
It's not either or.
We expect and want harsh jail time punishment to be meted out to Screwdriver Man in due course. This in no way let's anyone off leaving kids unattended. It only takes a second for a paedo to swipe them. Takes a moment for a car engine to go on fire. Takes a second for scumbag to hop into a car and hit the gas and car and kids are gone.

"Screwdriver Man" as you call him is a neighbour of mine.
He is a complete bol0x.
When I asked him for a loan of a screw driver last week for a DIY task he said he didnt have one !

jackiebaron

k_mac wrote: »

When I was eleven I was never put in charge of a two year old. I was never left in an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition. I never walked to the park on my own.

So when exactly were you allowed to do something by yourself?
Because most 11 year olds go to school by themselves. Most 11 year olds go to the shops by themselves for their mothers. Most 11 year olds also go out to play by themselves, meet up with friends and go to kick a ball or raid an orchard or have a game of kick-the-can or some shït.

At what age were you allowed to walk to the park or the shops by yourself? Up until the age of 11 and beyond you were accompanied everywhere by a parent or guardian?
Did you not find this constant accompaniment annoying, if not downright embarrassing?

MagicSean

jackiebaron wrote: »

So when exactly were you allowed to do something by yourself?
Because most 11 year olds go to school by themselves. Most 11 year olds go to the shops by themselves for their mothers. Most 11 year olds also go out to play by themselves, meet up with friends and go to kick a ball or raid an orchard or have a game of kick-the-can or some shït.

At what age were you allowed to walk to the park or the shops by yourself? Up until the age of 11 and beyond you were accompanied everywhere by a parent or guardian?
Did you not find this constant accompaniment annoying, if not downright embarrassing?

No I didn't. I was a child.

jackiebaron

k_mac wrote: »

When I was eleven I was never put in charge of a two year old. I was never left in an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition. I never walked to the park on my own.

So the structures and strictures of your sheltered upbringing should be the benchmark for the rest of the world?

Tell us more of what you weren't allowed to do so we can outlaw such activities for everyone.

jackiebaron

k_mac wrote: »

No I didn't. I was a child.

At 11?
Answer the question....when were you allowed to do something by yourself? When was the first time you went unaccompanied anywhere?

dark crystal

k_mac wrote: »

When I was eleven I was never put in charge of a two year old. I was never left in an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition. I never walked to the park on my own.

Good for you. However, not all children are as overprotected as you clearly were.
Many 11 year olds will have been left watching their younger brothers and sisters for a couple of minutes whilst the parent may go to answer the phone, go to the toilet, take the dinner out of the oven or answer the door. This does not make them negligent parents by any stretch of the imagination. How will children ever learn to mature if they are treated like babies all the time?

Leaving the key in the ignition was a silly error, I agree, but I'm sure the mum didn't for one second believe her children to be in any harm. I'm also sure she wasn't expecting some scumbag to steal her car. Blaming the mum for this crime is really and truly unfair on her, imo.

drkpower

dark crystal wrote: »

Leaving the key in the ignition was a silly error, I agree,

+1.
She really was incredibly stupid. Leaving your keys in the ignition when there is noone in the car is stupid. Doing so when your 3 kids are in the car is even more stupid.

But the nonsense being spouted by the likes of k_mac to the effect that an 11 year old child shouldnt be allowed to walk to the park on their own, or shouldnt be allowed to keep an eye on a 2 year old for 2 minutes, is utterly mindless.

I certainly walked to school on my own (400 metres or so) at the age of 10/11/12 (if not younger), as did alll of my peers. On occasion we might have also been asked to keep an eye on a toddler for a couple of minutes while playing outside the house, on the beach, while on holidays. Maybe k_mac can tell all of our respective parents that they are irresponsible & negligent.

mikom

I'm sensing a lot of daddy (and mommy) issues in this thread.

drkpower

mikom wrote: »

I'm sensing a lot of daddy (and mommy) issues in this thread.

MY MAMMY LOVED ME; DONT YOU DARE TELL ME SHE DIDNT.

MagicSean

jackiebaron wrote: »

So when exactly were you allowed to do something by yourself?
Because most 11 year olds go to school by themselves. Most 11 year olds go to the shops by themselves for their mothers. Most 11 year olds also go out to play by themselves, meet up with friends and go to kick a ball or raid an orchard or have a game of kick-the-can or some shït.

At what age were you allowed to walk to the park or the shops by yourself? Up until the age of 11 and beyond you were accompanied everywhere by a parent or guardian?
Did you not find this constant accompaniment annoying, if not downright embarrassing?

jackiebaron wrote: »

So the structures and strictures of your sheltered upbringing should be the benchmark for the rest of the world?

Tell us more of what you weren't allowed to do so we can outlaw such activities for everyone.

jackiebaron wrote: »

At 11?
Answer the question....when were you allowed to do something by yourself? When was the first time you went unaccompanied anywhere?

I really don't see what the point of all this is. Like I said it's all about judgement. Should you leave an eleven year old in a car on her own? Probably not but the risk is low. Should you leave her minding a two year old in the car? No, she would be incapable of doing what would need to be done if something happened and it is unfair to put that responsability on her. Should you leave the eleven year old minding the two year old in a car with the doors unlocked and the engine running while you are out of sight in the place with the highest crime rate in the country? Definitely not, this is where it becomes negligent. There is no point trying to single out the different aspects. It's the entire thing that counts.

dark crystal wrote: »

Good for you. However, not all children are as overprotected as you clearly were.
Many 11 year olds will have been left watching their younger brothers and sisters for a couple of minutes whilst the parent may go to answer the phone, go to the toilet, take the dinner out of the oven or answer the door. This does not make them negligent parents by any stretch of the imagination. How will children ever learn to mature if they are treated like babies all the time?

I wasn't overprotected at all. Not that I see how it would matter. I was eleven twenty years ago and I didn't live in the murder capital of Ireland. And none of those situations you mentioned would indicate negligent parenting. It's all about the context. Would you leave a two year old in a high chair to answer the door? Sure, minimal risk. Would you leave the two year old lying on the table to answer the door? Not a chance.

dark crystal wrote: »

Leaving the key in the ignition was a silly error, I agree, but I'm sure the mum didn't for one second believe her children to be in any harm. I'm also sure she wasn't expecting some scumbag to steal her car. Blaming the mum for this crime is really and truly unfair on her, imo.

Leaving the key was both illegal and stupid. I'm sure she didn't beleive any harm would come to the children. But did she even think about it at all? Or did she just rush in to get her nicotine fix with no thought for the children. Nobody is blaming her for the crime. The man who committed it was caught. Her crime was one of neglect. It might seem unfair but like I already said, you choose to be a parent, you have chosen to be responsable for a life, so you should be held to a high standard of care to ensure that you don't endanger that life.

drkpower wrote: »

But the nonsense being spouted by the likes of k_mac to the effect that an 11 year old child shouldnt be allowed to walk to the park on their own, or shouldnt be allowed to keep an eye on a 2 year old for 2 minutes, is utterly mindless.

I certainly walked to school on my own (400 metres or so) at the age of 10/11/12 (if not younger), as did alll of my peers. On occasion we might have also been asked to keep an eye on a toddler for a couple of minutes while playing outside the house, on the beach, while on holidays. Maybe k_mac can tell all of our respective parents that they are irresponsible & negligent.

Definitely in this day and age an eleven year old should not be walking around a park on their own. Going there with friends is completely different. I never set any hard rules down for what would be negligent. I said it comes down to judgement.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Definitely in this day and age an eleven year old should not be walking around a park on their own. Going there with friends is completely different. I never set any hard rules down for what would be negligent. I said it comes down to judgement.

In this day and age? Oh, I see; it was ok, what 10, or 20 years ago....?!

What about walking to school?
Or on the green 200 metres from your house?
Or on the beach while on holidays?

It seems it comes down to your judgment though; and as you seem to have been something of a sheltered child ('I never walked to the park on my own'), your judgment is probably not very reliable;).

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

In this day and age? Oh, I see; it was ok, what 10, or 20 years ago....?!

What about walking to school?
Or on the green 200 metres from your house?
Or on the beach while on holidays?

It seems it comes down to your judgment though; and as you seem to have been something of a sheltered child ('I never walked to the park on my own'), your judgment is probably not very reliable;).

My judgement is not based on my childhood, wether you consider it sheltered or not. My childhood has no relation to this at all.

Yes there was less risk twenty years ago. It's unfortunate but true. Like I said it's all down to judgement and risk. Is it ok to walk to school? Sure. Is it ok to walk to school the day after a young child has been kidnapped nearby? I don't think so.

If you think it was perfectly acceptable for the woman to leave her kids in that car that's up to you. I only hope you show better judgement when you care for children.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Is it ok to walk to school? Sure.

So its ok for an 11 year old to walk to school on their own?
But not to walk in the park on their own?

I knew your judgment was a little dodgy:D.

pandabrian

k_mac wrote: »

I really don't see what the point of all this is. Like I said it's all about judgement. Should you leave an eleven year old in a car on her own? Probably not but the risk is low. Should you leave her minding a two year old in the car? No, she would be incapable of doing what would need to be done if something happened and it is unfair to put that responsability on her. Should you leave the eleven year old minding the two year old in a car with the doors unlocked and the engine running while you are out of sight in the place with the highest crime rate in the country? Definitely not, this is where it becomes negligent. There is no point trying to single out the different aspects. It's the entire thing that counts.



I wasn't overprotected at all. Not that I see how it would matter. I was eleven twenty years ago and I didn't live in the murder capital of Ireland. And none of those situations you mentioned would indicate negligent parenting. It's all about the context. Would you leave a two year old in a high chair to answer the door? Sure, minimal risk. Would you leave the two year old lying on the table to answer the door? Not a chance.



Leaving the key was both illegal and stupid. I'm sure she didn't beleive any harm would come to the children. But did she even think about it at all? Or did she just rush in to get her nicotine fix with no thought for the children. Nobody is blaming her for the crime. The man who committed it was caught. Her crime was one of neglect. It might seem unfair but like I already said, you choose to be a parent, you have chosen to be responsable for a life, so you should be held to a high standard of care to ensure that you don't endanger that life.



Definitely in this day and age an eleven year old should not be walking around a park on their own. Going there with friends is completely different. I never set any hard rules down for what would be negligent. I said it comes down to judgement.

So, it would appear you seem to be the "judge" for everyone else to infer from your judgemental posts..tut tut

Plumbers

My god is this still being debated ???

The woman popped into the shop, not the pub for a swift one! I'm sure she won't be doing it again.
What's the bets the long streak of PI$$ who took the car will spend just about as much time inside as this woman did in the shop!

And for all of you on you moral high horse....You say you would lock the car, take the keys with you. What happens when one of your kids releases the handbrake and off down the hill they go heading for the river? And no one can save them cos the goddamn car is locked!!! You're ok with boards berating you then for your disgraceful crime? Maybe we should call the social services on you now. Save you from your disgusting neglect.

Get over yourselves people! This thread should be about the scumbag

END OF.

cruiser178

Plumbers wrote: »

My god is this still being debated ???

The woman popped into the shop, not the pub for a swift one! I'm sure she won't be doing it again.
What's the bets the long streak of PI$$ who took the car will spend just about as much time inside as this woman did in the shop!

And for all of you on you moral high horse....You say you would lock the car, take the keys with you. What happens when one of your kids releases the handbrake and off down the hill they go heading for the river? And no one can save them cos the goddamn car is locked!!! You're ok with boards berating you then for your disgraceful crime? Maybe we should call the social services on you now. Save you from your disgusting neglect.

Get over yourselves people! This thread should be about the scumbag

END OF.

spot on

mikom

Plumbers wrote: »

.You say you would lock the car, take the keys with you. What happens when one of your kids releases the handbrake and off down the hill they go heading for the river? And no one can save them cos the goddamn car is locked!!!

LOL, straws grasped.
You've obviously never seen the tender sheet for the installation of a Centra forecourt.
It's pretty exact as to levels.

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

So its ok for an 11 year old to walk to school on their own?
But not to walk in the park on their own?

I knew your judgment was a little dodgy:D.

My school was 100 meters down the road. The nearest park was a mile away and involve crossing the n7 before there was any bridges on it. I think my judgement is sound thenks.

pandabrian wrote: »

So, it would appear you seem to be the "judge" for everyone else to infer from your judgemental posts..tut tut

So what if I'm being judgemental. doesn't mean I amn't right.

Plumbers wrote: »

My god is this still being debated ???

The woman popped into the shop, not the pub for a swift one! I'm sure she won't be doing it again.
What's the bets the long streak of PI$$ who took the car will spend just about as much time inside as this woman did in the shop!

And for all of you on you moral high horse....You say you would lock the car, take the keys with you. What happens when one of your kids releases the handbrake and off down the hill they go heading for the river? And no one can save them cos the goddamn car is locked!!! You're ok with boards berating you then for your disgraceful crime? Maybe we should call the social services on you now. Save you from your disgusting neglect.

Get over yourselves people! This thread should be about the scumbag

END OF.

If you want to take short cuts you have to be prepared to take the consequences of your actions, especially when it comes to child care. The man would not have been able to take the car but for the mothers negligence. I don't know if you have noticed but crime is pretty rampant in a recession. You don't leave your sat nav on show or a handbag on your front seat do you?

Plumbers

k_mac wrote: »

If you want to take short cuts you have to be prepared to take the consequences of your actions, especially when it comes to child care. The man would not have been able to take the car but for the mothers negligence. I don't know if you have noticed but crime is pretty rampant in a recession. You don't leave your sat nav on show or a handbag on your front seat do you?

Get over yourself! If you want me to think like you then it is my moral duty to tell you right now that you are spending too much time online. And spending all this time online could damage your eyesight. And as you are now nearly blind you haven't seen the burglar enter you house (it's the recession y'know). Your child has just ran in to tell you, tripped over his SWAG bag and fallen into the fire! Your actions = CONSEQUENCES!

A bit far fetched??? So is your opinion of negligence.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

My school was 100 meters down the road. The nearest park was a mile away and involve crossing the n7 before there was any bridges on it. I think my judgement is sound thenks.

:DOh, I see; when you said it is ok for an 11 year old to walk to school, but not to walk in the park, you meant the specific geography of YOUR school and YOUR park......:D:D

Give it a rest; you are becoming embarrassing at this stage!

MagicSean

Plumbers wrote: »

Get over yourself! If you want me to think like you then it is my moral duty to tell you right now that you are spending too much time online. And spending all this time online could damage your eyesight. And as you are now nearly blind you haven't seen the burglar enter you house (it's the recession y'know). Your child has just ran in to tell you, tripped over his SWAG bag and fallen into the fire! Your actions = CONSEQUENCES!

A bit far fetched??? So is your opinion of negligence.

No burglar here. I lock my doors and alarm my windows. However if I were to leave my door open, my alarm off and my Mona Lisa in the hallway I doubt my insurance company would cover me.

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

:DOh, I see; when you said it is ok for an 11 year old to walk to school, but not to walk in the park, you meant the specific geography of YOUR school and YOUR park......:D:D

Give it a rest; you are becoming embarrassing at this stage!

Yes. I already said it's about context. And I wasn't the one who started talking about my personal childhood. Someone else brought that up. If you honestly think that this woman behaved correctly just say it. Stop making excuses for her based on possible alternative tragedies.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Yes. I already said it's about context. It's your semantics that are getting embarassing.

:DLol!:D

So are you saying that it may be ok for an 11y.o. to walk to school now? And that it is ok for an 11 yo to walk in the park now?

Plumbers

k_mac wrote: »

No burglar here. I lock my doors and alarm my windows. However if I were to leave my door open, my alarm off and my Mona Lisa in the hallway I doubt my insurance company would cover me.

Yeah and i bring my pepper spray and rape alarm into the shower with me too. Dunno what sort of cocoon you live in. It really isn't that bad out here you know:rolleyes:

cruiser178

Plumbers wrote: »

Get over yourself! If you want me to think like you then it is my moral duty to tell you right now that you are spending too much time online. And spending all this time online could damage your eyesight. And as you are now nearly blind you haven't seen the burglar enter you house (it's the recession y'know). Your child has just ran in to tell you, tripped over his SWAG bag and fallen into the fire! Your actions = CONSEQUENCES!

A bit far fetched??? So is your opinion of negligence.