Parent & Child Parking Spaces - A Poll

eviltimeban

This

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

indeed they have, to make more money. nothing to do with safety etc, just makes it that little bit more appealing for parents with kids to shop there so more likely to earn more money from them. Pure and simple

and this

Jimoslimos wrote: »

P&C spots don't exist out of some magnanimous act of consideration for struggling families. They're put there because these people spend more money than childless couples or singles.

Disabled bays are required by law and many places would get rid off them had they half a chance. P&C spots on the other hand are a marketing ploy and make good business sense.

are the most ridiculous points I've seen made about this argument. I'll shop somewhere because of either its prices, proximity to my house or the selection available, not because they have 5 or 6 slightly wider spaces, that in fairness are nearly always taken anyway (I wouldn't hazard a guess who they are mostly taken by, given the evidence here).

I had an argument with a guy once who parked his car in the P&C spaces, and he was a complete assh*le. No surprise there.

People parking in handicap spaces really get my goat, I used to always say something to the person who did the parking but it got to be such a common occurance that I literally gave up. What's the point? These people will never learn. If they had a shred of decency about them, they would not have parked there in the first place.

RaRaRasputin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And didn't them black people manage fine before they got all them rights - and didn't them women survive without the vote - and didn't them disabled people manage fine before planners got all fangled and demanded buildings be made accessible and get their fancy badges.

Down with this progress-shmogress. You've convinced me, I'm going to start parking in disabled bays, sure, didn't they manage fine before?! Doesn't everyone get wet in the rain?!

Possibly one of the most comparisons in the world.

Felexicon

chatterpillar wrote: »

The way I'd see it is that, firstly, the more parents that park in these spaces, the less parents parking in the main carpark - where there's a greater than usual chance of them hitting their doors off other peoples' cars, either from careless kids doing it, or from the parent accidentally doing it while trying to maneuvere out a carseat/baby in a small space.

Secondly, walking a slightly longer distance might be a minor inconvenience to me. But, parking in a space further away and having to cross traffic when you are struggling with babies/small children is likely to cause a far greater inconvenience to a parent. So, personally, I'm happy to accept the minor inconvenience.

Obviously there's nothing legally wrong with what you're doing. It's just not a choice with which I'd personally be comfortable. I'm a healthy capable person, I'm well able to walk the extra distance - I'd feel very lazy and selfish knowing that I may be creating unnecessary extra hassle for someone else, just for the sake of saving myself a minute or two.

If these people care so little about damaging other peoples cars and can't teach thier kids basic car door control I feel even less guilty about taking thier spaces.
I'm also a healthy capable person who is well able to walk the extra distance, my point is why should I. Why should people with kids get to be the lazy ones

Jimoslimos

eviltimeban wrote: »

TI'll shop somewhere because of either its prices, proximity to my house or the selection available, not because they have 5 or 6 slightly wider spaces, that in fairness are nearly always taken anyway (I wouldn't hazard a guess who they are mostly taken by, given the evidence here).

I had an argument with a guy once who parked his car in the P&C spaces, and he was a complete assh*le. No surprise there.

Just because you consciously don't regard parking as important doesn't mean that you don't subconsciously.

In fact you've killed your own argument by demonstrating how angry you got over 'some asshole parking in a P&C space'. Obviously it does matter.

Everything from music played in store, positioning of products on the aisles, milk located at the back of store are all examples of techniques used by retail to entice you to spend more money - ever walked into an IKEA to pick up something quickly? Parking is no different

Davidth88

Well I hope the people who voted yes ( but no children ) , don't complain when their cars are ' dinked ' by people trying to get their kids out of the cars in narrow ' normal ' spaces .

These spaces are are useful , if you ever try to lift a child out of a child seat in a normal space with people parked next to you , then you will realise why.

People who don't have kids and park in these spaces are selfish

People who park in disabled spaces and are not entitled to , they should be forced to spend a day in a wheelchair and see how they like it !! They are below contempt.

Felexicon

Davidth88 wrote: »

Well I hope the people who voted yes ( but no children ) , don't complain when their cars are ' dinked ' by people trying to get their kids out of the cars in narrow ' normal ' spaces .

These spaces are are useful , if you ever try to lift a child out of a child seat in a normal space with people parked next to you , then you will realise why.

People who don't have kids and park in these spaces are selfish

People who park in disabled spaces and are not entitled to , they should be forced to spend a day in a wheelchair and see how they like it !! They are below contempt.

If you are unable to get your kids out of the car without 'dinking' another car while parked in a regular sized space I would suggest getting a babysitter to look after your kids while you go shopping.

I'd argue that it's more selfish of you to expect special treatment just for bringing kids to a shop. It really is bad parenting to raise kids in such a way that they expect the world to do them favours

RaRaRasputin

up for anything wrote: »

You are taking the mickey, aren't you?


And that old chestnut - "how on earth did parents just a decade ago manage without them?" Maybe in the same way that people managed without indoor toilets, electricity, cars, biros and a host of other stuff that we take for granted to day. They just got on with it. But not many want to go back or do go back to the days when the local barber solved your dental problems or applied a few leeches to a gouty knee!

Another wonderful comparison. I take it you are old enough to have experienced life without electricity etc. so you know what you're talking about?
P&C spaces <=> Electricity....yes that makes sense...

Davidth88

Felexicon wrote: »

If you are unable to get your kids out of the car without 'dinking' another car while parked in a regular sized space I would suggest getting a babysitter to look after your kids while you go shopping.

I'd argue that it's more selfish of you to expect special treatment just for bringing kids to a shop. It really is bad parenting to raise kids in such a way that they expect the world to do them favours

I thought your way until I tried it.

Lifting a 1YO baby out of a child seat takes some space, have you ever tried it ?

As for me expecting favours ( or expecting favours for my children ) I think a store giving me a couple more inches so I can get my child of of the car easier is hardly special treatment .

eviltimeban

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Just because you consciously don't regard parking as important doesn't mean that you don't subconsciously.

Eh?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

In fact you've killed your own argument by demonstrating how angry you got over 'some asshole parking in a P&C space'. Obviously it does matter.

Never said I got angry. Just said he was an assh@le. IOW, proving the type of people who lack the common courtesy to just let the spaces be used for what they're supposed to be used for.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Everything from music played in store, positioning of products on the aisles, milk located at the back of store are all examples of techniques used by retail to entice you to spend more money - ever walked into an IKEA to pick up something quickly? Parking is no different

Well... that argument doesn't really hold up as then you might as well say that ALL the spaces are there to entice you to come in and spend money. A supermarket with no parking isn't going to do very well, is it? :-)

Felexicon

Davidth88 wrote: »

I thought your way until I tried it.

Lifting a 1YO baby out of a child seat takes some space, have you ever tried it ?

As for me expecting favours ( or expecting favours for my children ) I think a store giving me a couple more inches so I can get my child of of the car easier is hardly special treatment .

Yes I've tried it and had no problems.

Of course it's special treatment. You're getting something different from everyone else just because you've managed to dip your wick in some skank and one of your swimmers reached the final destination.
If that's not special treatment what is

eviltimeban

Here's the thing about the "money making" comments. In my local Superquinn there's about...oh, I reckon between 6 - 10 P&C spaces, and about 200 regular spaces.

If they are trying to entice these seemingly loaded parents into the shop, why aren't ALL the spaces P&C spaces? Obviously the people who are childless aren't worth as much, right? Right?!

Do something nice today folks. Let someone take your space. Let someone go out in traffic. Hold the door open for someone. Help a blind person across the street. If you're a man, let ladies go first. Give up your train seat for an older person.

Say please and thank you. Smile. Don't be so angry and indignant. You might look better and live longer.

bigjohn66

stimpson wrote: »

Just because you say so? whatever.
Plausible deniability is a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.

Two things for you again showing you to be wrong.

(1) Plausible deniability is a form of defense, it does not make something illegal, legal and you said “Maybe I'm just too lazy to avoid them. It's hardly illegal” yes it is illegal.

(2) You can not use plausible deniability as a defense, when you openly admit to doing the damage.

bigjohn66

cbrlover wrote: »

Just to help give some incite into this debate.

My sister in law manages a supermarket in Liverpool. At the request of parents, they changed 5 parking spots from standard spots to 3 P&C spots. They put up signs saying people would be clamped if the used them without having children with them. They paid for in extra surveillance for security but here is the crunch, they were on the far side of the car park with a path, with railings leading to the shop door.

Guess what after 6 months they were put back to being 5 standard spots because people didn’t use them.

This goes a little way to answering the question about the reason people use them. Parents would rather struggle with tight spots and be close to the door rather than have space to load and unload but have to walk.

Since I read this yesterday I have been watching to see what would come of it

I find it funny that all the people defending the P&C parking spaces made no comment on this. This shows it is not the convenience of the extra space but the convenience of being nearer the door is why people use them. Yet all these people try to defend these parking spots giving other reasons, including calling other people fat and lazy. But this proves it is them who are the lazy ones.

tiny_penguin

Davidth88 wrote: »

I thought your way until I tried it.

Lifting a 1YO baby out of a child seat takes some space, have you ever tried it ?

As for me expecting favours ( or expecting favours for my children ) I think a store giving me a couple more inches so I can get my child of of the car easier is hardly special treatment .

What if all the P&C spaces are taken by actual parents with small children? Do you then think its ok to bash others car with your car door because you have a child in it?

I wouldn't park in theses spaces unless its the only one free (don't think its reasonable to expect someone to drive around waiting for someone to leave if there is a free space that is not legally required by someone else). I wouldn't even call it an inconvenience to me to have to park in a smaller spot/slightly further away so I don't think its right to take away something that may be a help to someone else. As has been said before it is just general courtesy and i think anyone who parks in them for the sake is a bit of an idiot - but i do think it is a bit rich that so many parents are saying that if they cant get one of this spaces the knock on is that they will most likely damage someone elses car in the process of taking their children out. Were cars routinely damaged by parents before these spaces came? Is it ok to damage cars when you are in a car park that have non of these spaces?

And anyone comparing the need for these in the same bracket as the need for electricity, indoor toilets, running water or worse still human rights issues really needs to get a grip.

Davidth88

tiny_penguin wrote: »

What if all the P&C spaces are taken by actual parents with small children? Do you then think its ok to bash others car with your car door because you have a child in it?

Of course it's not ok .

I do everything I can not to , ( I don't think I have ever knowingly done it ) , but some people are not as careful as me .

It's usual if you have one small child to put that child in the nearside rear seat , because you can see them easier. You have to get out of the drivers door, this means that you need space on both sides of the car

Lifting a child out of the rear seat takes some leverage, you have to lean in and grab both sides of the child , and you physically have to get them through the gap.

As for being closer to the store , that truly isn't an issue for me , I wouldn't give a monkeys TBH. If there are no P/C spaces I often park further away where the car park is emptier, or against a curb space so no one parks on my nearside.

BostonB

When did Ireland become such a selfish place where no ones want help anyone else simply so they can spend 5 mins less in a shop.

I assume the reasons parents would like to be close to the door is so they don't have drag their kids across a busy car park. Or have them dismount next to a path.

When I park I try to park (in no particular order) near the path that leads to the shop, so they kids are off road as much as possible, and where people are least likely ding my doors, and where people are less likely to park 3 inches away prevent access from that side of the car. How close to the shops is irrelevent to me, as you can't do anything quickly with a bunch of kids or a baby. But then I'm a car person, I hate parking near other people, or near busy spots in the car park. I parked away from the busiest spots even when I was single.

That said there are inconsiderate parent, just as they are inconsiderate non parents. But its the lack of empathy which is so disappointing in this thread. Its like the people who won't let you out of a junction, so they can race to sit a red light 5 meters away. Ireland 2012, the land not of a 1000 welcomes.

Arciphel

I take solace in knowing that all the selfish, argumentative obstreperous pricks who park in these spaces and who don't have kids will eventually die out over time and not pass their selfish arrogant genes on. One or two generations and all these asshats will all have died out.

Felexicon

Arciphel wrote: »

I take solace in knowing that all the selfish, argumentative obstreperous pricks who park in these spaces and who don't have kids will eventually die out over time and not pass their selfish arrogant genes on. One or two generations and all these asshats will all have died out.

Did you know using words in print that you would never use when speaking is one of the major signs of a low IQ?

Why do you feel that people with kids should have any special treatment over those without?

By your reckoning, in 3 generations time everyone will have kids.
Do "asshats" not have kids?

Arciphel

Thank you for the concern about my IQ, I assure you it is fine and I'm quite happy with it.

I think you need to differentiate special treatment vs a societal drive to improve things for people who behave in a way which is deemed beneficial to all.

alchemist33

Felexicon wrote: »

Arciphel wrote: »

I take solace in knowing that all the selfish, argumentative obstreperous pricks who park in these spaces and who don't have kids will eventually die out over time and not pass their selfish arrogant genes on. One or two generations and all these asshats will all have died out.

Did you know using words in print that you would never use when speaking is one of the major signs of a low IQ?

Why do you feel that people with kids should have any special treatment over those without?

By your reckoning, in 3 generations time everyone will have kids.
Do "asshats" not have kids?

On the previous page you called someone's partner a skank. Grow up.

Felexicon

Arciphel wrote: »

Thank you for the concern about my IQ, I assure you it is fine and I'm quite happy with it.

I think you need to differentiate special treatment vs a societal drive to improve things for people who behave in a way which is deemed beneficial to all.

Having kids and bringing them up to beleive that the world will give them a helping hand whenever it's needed is beneficial to all?
Seems legit

the_syco

I think those spaces are great: keeps your car ding free!

Felexicon

alchemist33 wrote: »

On the previous page you called someone's partner a skank. Grow up.

joke
1.
something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2.
something that is amusing or ridiculous, especially because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3.
a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.
4.
something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.
5. Practical joke
　
　
6.
to speak or act in a playful or merry way: He was always joking with us.
7.
to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest; be facetious: He didn't really mean it, he was only joking.

Arciphel

You know that posting something in bold and big letters is considered by the intellectual elite as being of low IQ don't you? Sniff sniff!

Felexicon

Arciphel wrote: »

You know that posting something in bold and big letters is considered by the intellectual elite as being of low IQ don't you? Sniff sniff!

Yeah, but I'm an idiot.

Arciphel

Well played sir, well played...

biko

Felexicon is threadbanned from this post on.

stimpson

bigjohn66 wrote: »

(1) Plausible deniability is a form of defense, it does not make something illegal, legal and you said “Maybe I'm just too lazy to avoid them. It's hardly illegal” yes it is illegal.

Firstly, the chances of being brought to court for a supermarket ding are infinitesimal. But supposing it happened, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to the selfish parker to prove malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically speaking, all I would need to do is claim that it was an accident. Being a parent, lack of sleep and trying to simultaneously wrestle a toddler into submission would probably be enough to allow me to plausibly deny malicious intent.

RaRaRasputin

stimpson wrote: »

Firstly, the chances of being brought to court for a supermarket ding are infinitesimal. But supposing it happened, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to the selfish parker to prove malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically speaking, all I would need to do is claim that it was an accident. Being a parent, lack of sleep and trying to simultaneously wrestle a toddler into submission would probably be enough to allow me to plausibly deny malicious intent.

You'd still have to pay for the damage you caused, whether it was an accident or not.

stimpson

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

You'd still have to pay for the damage you caused, whether it was an accident or not.

As I said, the chances of being brought to court are infinitesimal.

As a general rule I don't park in them, I have done on occasion but I'd rather park in a quieter part of the car park where there is less chance of someone hitting a trolley, buggy or car door against my car.

However I always park in them when I have my elderly grandmother with me. We don't have a disabled badge so cant use the disabled spaces and she can walk but I wouldn't expect her to walk from the far end of the car park and then walk around the shop, especially if its wet. Its also easier for her to get out with the wider spaces.

If I ever get clamped for doing the above because I'm using the spaces "incorrectly", I will wrap the clamp around the head of who ever clamped me.

tiny_penguin

stimpson wrote: »

Firstly, the chances of being brought to court for a supermarket ding are infinitesimal. But supposing it happened, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to the selfish parker to prove malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically speaking, all I would need to do is claim that it was an accident. Being a parent, lack of sleep and trying to simultaneously wrestle a toddler into submission would probably be enough to allow me to plausibly deny malicious intent.

Just because there is a way of you lying to get out of criminal liability does not make the act any less illegal. And it is still entirely pathetic that you would think it is ok to damage somebody elses property just because you know you will most likely get away with it. Would you break into someones house, assault or murder someone just because you know you would be able to lie your way out of it. Possibly more extreme cases but pretty much boils down to the same thing.

Medusa22

I often have to park in a ''normal'' space because the disabled bay is full up, often with cars which are not displaying a disabled badge. Judging by the overreaction of some parents on this thread, this would give me the right to ''ding'' or ''scrape'' the cars of the people who shouldn't be parked in the disabled bay. However, I am not a self-entitled nitwit so I don't do this.

stimpson

tiny_penguin wrote: »

And it is still entirely pathetic that you would think it is ok to damage somebody elses property just because you know you will most likely get away with it.

I never said it was OK. I just said that sometimes it happens "accidentally".

I think on a moral level it's no big deal as most of the people who are getting upset about it seem to have no qualms about inconveniencing parents and endangering young children.

Arciphel

People who would ding others people's cars on purpose are far worse than someone that would park in a disabled bay, who are again worse than someone parking in a parent and child space without kids.

RaRaRasputin

stimpson wrote: »

As I said, the chances of being brought to court are infinitesimal.

Not really, if you damage a car and just head off without notifying the owner of it or call the police you are committing a criminal offense. You will be held liable for it and if you don't co-operate you might find yourself in court sooner or later.

V1llianous

I have 2 children - one who is 6 and has a disability but not entitled to a disabled space permit and also a 4 year old with no disability.

In reality the only spaces I can generally use for bringing my disabled child (and his assistance dog) to the shops is the parent and child space and I would often queue for one of them (waiting for someone with their teenagers /adult children to finish using it ) to reduce the risk of injury and ease the journey in / out of the shops.

With my 4 year old I would use a parent and child space if there was one free as he is still learning about road safety - if there isn't one available I will park in an alternative location with less traffic involved. When he is older and has mastered road safety I wouldn't use a parent and child space when I just had him with me.

omega666

stimpson wrote: »

I never said it was OK. I just said that sometimes it happens "accidentally".

I think on a moral level it's no big deal as most of the people who are getting upset about it seem to have no qualms about inconveniencing parents and endangering young children.

Thanks for proving the point, Yet another reason for us singletons to use these spots, to avoid parents that damage your car in the normal spots!

stimpson

Arciphel wrote: »

People who would ding others people's cars on purpose are far worse than someone that would park in a disabled bay, who are again worse than someone parking in a parent and child space without kids.

You're getting into Moral Relativism here. You have to realise that your opinion is just your opinion. There are no moral absolutes in this world.

Nietzsche believed that we have to assess the value of our values since values are relative to one's goals and one's self.

tiny_penguin

stimpson wrote: »

I never said it was OK. I just said that sometimes it happens "accidentally".

I think on a moral level it's no big deal as most of the people who are getting upset about it seem to have no qualms about inconveniencing parents and endangering young children.

So you would be of the moral camp 2 wrongs make a right then? Is this what you are teaching your children. For the record as I have said I would not park in one of these spaces unless it was the only free space in the car park (highly unlikely scanrio) and i think you are utterly pathetic. Putting the word accident in inverted commas does not make it true. You have said you will damage someones car if they park in a P&C space without children.

Also it has been stated a number of times that these spaces are not about safety for the children - it is about convenience for the parents having a bigger space. Most parents on this forum said that it would make no odds if the space was beside to door or at the back of the car park. So the endangering young children is a bit of a stretch.

i also find it funny that the parents who are so angry about the poeople parking in P&C spaces are saying the knock on effect is people in normal spaces will have their cars dinged by parents trying to get their kids out. It has also been implied that it is impossible for a parent to park in a normal space without dinging the car beside them. TBH this would be more of an incentive to park in the P&C space as you wont end up having your car dinged for following the rules. I still don't condone it and wouldnt do it myself - but from the attitude of some parents here i can see the appeal.

dark crystal

I find it funny all those people banging on about parent's supposed self entitlement, yet feel perfectly self entitled to park in spaces designated for others.

Odysseus

stimpson wrote: »

Firstly, the chances of being brought to court for a supermarket ding are infinitesimal. But supposing it happened, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to the selfish parker to prove malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically speaking, all I would need to do is claim that it was an accident. Being a parent, lack of sleep and trying to simultaneously wrestle a toddler into submission would probably be enough to allow me to plausibly deny malicious intent.

You admit in open court to lack of sleep affecting your abilty to pack a car, and I think you my be proving you where unfit to drive in the first place.

stimpson

Odysseus wrote: »

You admit in open court to lack of sleep affecting your abilty to pack a car, and I think you my be proving you where unfit to drive in the first place.

Good point. I'll stick to the screaming child defence.

Skylinehead

stimpson wrote: »

I never said it was OK. I just said that sometimes it happens "accidentally".

I think on a moral level it's no big deal as most of the people who are getting upset about it seem to have no qualms about inconveniencing parents and endangering young children.

You said earlier it wasn't illegal to bash someones car "accidentally". Which means not accidentally, which makes it illegal. Whether or not you get caught doesn't come into it, I can hardly murder someone and claim that it's legal due to lack of evidence can I?

stimpson

Skylinehead wrote: »

You said earlier it wasn't illegal to bash someones car "accidentally". Which means not accidentally.

No it doesn't.

Whether or not you get caught doesn't come into it, I can hardly murder someone and claim that it's legal due to lack of evidence can I?

Of course it comes into it. Our whole legal system is based around habeous corpus. The only person who can decide if my actions are illegal is a judge. Even if you murder someone you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Morag

With the closure of the his account, one has to wonder which of the serial trouble makers was
WolfgangWeisen and what sort of psychopathy does he have to keep creating such accounts to rile people up.

Capt'n Midnight

Marcusm wrote: »

The unborn child has an equal right to life and thus you shoud ave an equal right of access to these spaces!

A woman gets on a full bus and asks this lad to give up his seat because she is pregnant.
As he gets up he says "you're not showing yet, how long has it been ?"
"oh about 15 minutes "

BostonB

tiny_penguin wrote: »

.....Also it has been stated a number of times that these spaces are not about safety for the children - it is about convenience for the parents having a bigger space. Most parents on this forum said that it would make no odds if the space was beside to door or at the back of the car park. So the endangering young children is a bit of a stretch. ....

I don't think so. Its common sense you don't want to bring kids across a car park if you have a choice not to. Cars parking is a danger zone for kids. They are hard to see from many vehicles when parking. That some parents aren't aware of the danger, doesn't make not more dangerous than parking close to the path.

tiny_penguin wrote: »

i also find it funny that the parents who are so angry about the poeople parking in P&C spaces are saying the knock on effect is people in normal spaces will have their cars dinged by parents trying to get their kids out. It has also been implied that it is impossible for a parent to park in a normal space without dinging the car beside them. TBH this would be more of an incentive to park in the P&C space as you wont end up having your car dinged for following the rules. I still don't condone it and wouldnt do it myself - but from the attitude of some parents here i can see the appeal.

Personally I hate parking beside other vehicles with kids, because some kids (and some parents and indeed some non parents) don't car about dinging other peoples cars. Some people don't car about inconveniencing others by parking too close.

Best car to park beside is an older well maintained car. Many people don't even care about their new car, maybe its a company or hire car etc. Then theres some people who just don't care about cars full stop.

What I dislike about this thread is the us/them attitude. Theres obviously selfish people in both groups, and likewise altruistic people on both sides.

Capt'n Midnight

bigjohn66 wrote: »

Should it not be the parent’s responsibility to control their children?

phrases like "safe working environment" come to mind

but yeah you're right , they should be down the mills plucking treads from beneath the looms

bigjoe

stimpson wrote: »

Firstly, the chances of being brought to court for a supermarket ding are infinitesimal. But supposing it happened, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's up to the selfish parker to prove malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically speaking, all I would need to do is claim that it was an accident. Being a parent, lack of sleep and trying to simultaneously wrestle a toddler into submission would probably be enough to allow me to plausibly deny malicious intent.

Obviously you spend so much time with your children that you think like a child and won’t admit when you are wrong. You talk about it going to court; if it were not illegal it would never get to court.

You made a statement “It's hardly illegal” yes it is illegal. Any damage to other people’s property is illegal. Weather you are found guilty or financially responsible for it or not is not the question here. I never mentioned malicious intent you did but that is not what you first said you are now twisting things to suit you.