Johannes wrote on Sat, 21 May 2005 11:31:32 GMT:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
Johannes wrote:

[...]

Amusing to have your car damaged by vigilante vandals?

The unauthorised parker has temporarily deprived the space owner of
enjoyment of their property so can have no real objection to similar
treatment.

For what purpose other than satisfying some sick fantasy of a vandal.

It appears to annoy you, which is just an unexpected bonus.

--
David Taylor

On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:43:47 GMT and in uk.rec.cars.misc, Adrian
wrote....

sme ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

My father's currently waiting for both knees to be replaced, and can
barely walk, even with two sticks. However, because it's a
relatively short-term thing, he can't get a blue badge.

Why can't he get a blue badge?

Because he can't.

Has he tried?

Yes.

AFAIK you can get one automatically if you receive full DLA.

He doesn't. He's on the waiting list for having both done, so they
won't give him a badge, as it's "temporary". Apparently. Still, he's
only on the board of the local hospital trust...

No point in metioning the discretionary form you can get i suppose.

He's been threatened with
clamping in his local supermarket for parking in the disabled bays,
as they are blue-badge only. We've all seen perfectly able-bodied
people abusing blue badges, too.

I am able bodied and have a blue badge. I get it due to having no
kidneys and being on dialysis.

With no disrespect, how's that affect your ability to get from one end
of the supermarket car park to the other?

None taken. Dialysis is performed 3 times a week for 6 hours each time.
It removes toxins and fluid from your blood. Due to this constant
flucuation of body weight and fluid levels i suffer from high and low
blood pressure, dependant on when dialysis takes place. This causes dizzy
spells, blackouts, muscle fatigue and loss of breath. The hardest part is
actually getting anyone to believe you are on dialysis when you are
having a good day.

--
sme
http://www.atbg60.dsl.pipex.com/page3.html

In article , me8
@privacy.net says...
nor are they for children who can walk but when they are they do make it
easier for other shoppers because the child laden trolleys or pushchairs
aren't obstructing others.

Apart from up taking spaces that could be provided for the needy.

They are needy? they need food.

Brats in car parks make life difficult for everyone as almost without
exception, they are ill mannered, foul mouthed yobs who do not get any form
of discipline when they create havoc. Why should others have to put up with
that?
Almost without exception?

I'm sure that you will consider this response to be arrogant, uncaring and
unreasonable, however, I am sick of seeing the bone idle causing hardship
for those who are in genuine need by occupying disabled spaces. If people
want to breed, that's fine, but don't inflict the results on others or
expect special treatment.

And without exception I have seen these "disabled " people climb easily
out of their top of the range luxury cars and stoll into the shops.
Does that mean all blue badge holders are like that?
How, apart from keeping children locked away, are parents supposed to
prevent any interaction between their children and the public?

Yes OK i'm in a bad mood. :-)

It shows.

--

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

Why shouldn't they? People enjoy newer cars, people enjoy having the
newer advances in technology. Why wait until the car dies (which could
be 10 years+), before buying a different car?

LOL! And making someone else have something not good enough for you?

If they're happy with what they're buying, and they've be honestly told
exactly what it is they're getting, then where's the problem? No-one's
forced at gunpoint to buy anything - if they choose to buy a 10-15 year old
car, knowing exactly what it is and what small faults it has, then that's
their choice. As it is their choice as to exactly what they pay for it - if
they can't buy it at a price that's acceptable to them, then they won't buy
it. Simple really.

I said that if he was as hard up as that I'd pay him for the repair
and gave him a cheque there and then.

I hope he took you up on the offer.

I didn't wait for him to take up the offer.

Why not? If you damaged someone else's property, then it's only fair that
you pay for that damage.

It's not a case of how hard up a
person is, it's about you damaging their property which costs them to
have it fixed.

But I doubt that he had the 'damage' fixed.

Then he's been compensated for the fact that his car is still damaged, and
hence worth slightly less.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

Conor wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 23:00:53 +0100:
In article o.uk,
Andy Tillbrook says...

Then the owner of the car must be equally guilty of Criminal Damage, as
by parking in a private parking space he is causing the rightful
occupant to have to find an alternative, which he would not otherwise
have had to do.

Err no. Not too bright are you?

Given the assertion in the post he's replying to, Andy is completely
right.

--
David Taylor

In message , raden
writes
In message , Christian
McArdle writes
However, recently a small number of strangers have started parking
here regularly and some leave their car here all day while they
are at work.

Let down all the tyres. Every time. It'll take them longer to move that day,
but they should get the message in future.

You really shouldn't do that

Nor should you put the sticker on the windscreen with silicone adhesive
as it will leave a smear which is next to impossible to remove over the
life of the windscreen. Whatever you do, don't stick polyurethane foam
up the exhaust, it's a very very bad thing to do.


Pritt, applied generously to the car window before applying the notice
(printed on thin cheap A4) is right out.
Pritt stays tacky. I never used to worry about putting it on the front
or back window, and the committee never got any complaints from the
trespassers.

Never apply Castrol grease to the front window, people'll think you've
got mutant pigeons.

During the conker-dropping season, never shove a green pod into the
exhaust pipe, even if it happens to fit, because kids will get the
blame.

--
Sue ];(

"Andy Turner" wrote in message

He very quickly realised that he'd got his priorities wrong.

Did you stop to wonder *why* his priorities were that way around -
such that (as you imply), you had to force him to adopt different
priorities than those which occur naturally to him?

That's your interpretation of what I wrote. It wasn't my intention, it
wasn't the case. I can't force my husband - or anyone else - to have
feelings which don't come naturally. I wouldn't want to either.

Too much love for his car, or not enough love for you?

He doesn't have the car any more, he still has me :-)

Mary


andyt

In article om,
says...
THey're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

Quite, there are far more important things in life than things. Life
for instance. I guess these people have been sheltered all their
pathetic little lives and have never been in true fear of their own or
come come close to being killed. Both of those I have experienced.
Property is not important, it's nice have, can make life more
comfortable or convient but you don't *need* it.

And property can be important and indeed essential. To say all property
is not important is a bit stupid and shows shallow thinking.


--

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


How about if I shred a Rembrant, or take a chisel to the odd statue or
two?

....

never likely to see them again - and prints are no substitute (I used to
think they were until I saw them in the flesh, as it were).

So you don't have any single item of non organic beauty you would be upset
about someone damaging without a second thought?

I don't think I do.

But you're talking about one-offs there, unique items, not mass produced
ones. They can't be reproduced 100%, a car door can. A clock can, a ring
can. Sentimental value is meaningless, if an identical item was
substituted
for the clock or ring I doubt that it would be noticed.

A car can be replaced with another car, but not that car, with the same
settled in mechanicals, seats, engine, memories, etc. In fact, unless
you're
driving something fairly new and common, you're going to struggle to get
anything near identical. I'd say the same about most things really. What
you're really saying is things can be replaced with others that will do a
similar or possibly identical job, which is very different.

Whatever turns you on.

I still firmly believe that people are more important.

....

I happen to drive a slowly
appreciating
classic.

We've done that, been there, they aren't as efficient as the car we drive
today. They caused more damage through pollution (to humans), were less
efficient and didn't have the carrying capacity we need.

Do you really want to start the new v old car pollution debate?

No ...

My car was
made 25 years ago, and in that time has covered around 75 thousand miles.
It
has had very little major work, mainly using the consumables as any other
car would. It's main polluting effect, being the resources used to produce
it, has been offset by it remaining in use, so preventing a whole new load
of pollution to be released to provide a new car. By not being scrapped in
favour of a newer car, it has also not created the environmental nightmare
of disposing of the plastics and other nasties.

.... but apparently you do :-)



But you might be interested in a long run of Practical Classics (from No
1)
we have cluttering the house. You probably already have them, if not
they're
yours for the carriage or collection.

I used to read it, but I found it concentrated on the mainstream quaint
small cars and exotic luxury cars too much as time went on. And I'm sure
in
recent years it's started having some decidedly not yet ready to be
classics
as features. So the offer's tempting, but the postage would be silly
amounts
for not much worth reading really

There aren't any for the last few years so you've probably read and already
know everything in what we have.

If it's a genuine offer, I might ask around if anyone I know's interested,
they might appreciate it.

I don't say things I don't mean.

....


Have you never been careless? Have you never - in your whole life -
caused
any damage to others' possessions or themselves, whether maliciously or
not?

Of course I have. Unlike many, I've even noticed I've done it, and tried
to
rectify it. I am not against people making mistakes, we all do. I'm
against
them not taking any responsibility for them when pointed out.

So it's the responsibility aspect and not the damage to a precious
possession. I see.


....


You've been saying things are meaningless. I've not been saying we
shouldn't
give a damn about people (I'm sure there's at least a handful worth
bothering with somewhere), I'm saying people should give a damn about
other
people, as much as they expect me to give a damn about them. I grow tired
of
the arguments that everybody's free to do as they wish, so long as what
they
wish is what the person dishing out the freedom wants.

I don't say that, I've never said that, I don't believe that.



I can't possibly comment on this without sounding like an utter
*******,
so
I won't!

Says it all, really ...

It's an art, one I have yet to quite perfect though.

You could learn from me :-)

Mary

In article om,
says...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:53:32 GMT, AstraVanMan wrote:

Either way, the point is if a person causes damage to someone else's
property that didn't have that damage before, then they should pay
for the repair. If the person then decides to pocket the cash and
live with the dent/scratch/scrape, then that's entirely up to them.

No, that is fraud, or extortion if they had threatened the payer in
anyway.


Don't be silly, it is not fraud or extortion at all.

--

joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Conor" wrote in message

They're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

OK, I'll pop round and **** in your PC.

Why?


On my way, I'll pop into HMV and take a hammer to the CDs.

Why?

Because these are just things, with only a financial interest, and have no
real value compared to the desires and mechansims of nature.

But would it give you pleasure?

Or maybe actually causing damage to bits of plastic is something that has
an
effect on people, and we should consider that, whether the damage be
accidental or deliberate. Peoples lives depend on just things, peoples
income depends on just things. People can get emotional support from
things,

That's a shame.

and if someone else takes that thing away, or defaces it, is it just
damage
to to a thing, or damage to a person? Was the fact my stereo, TV and tapes
were stolen, and the *******s covered the carpet in paint only upsetting
because I was too attached to these things?

I've no idea. Perhaps you didn't have someone else to turn to, to support
you, to laugh and say it's a good opportunity to replace them with more up
to date things. Or just to have more space in the house, more space in your
life. I have no idea. I don't even know if that has happened to your
property.

....

I had to pop out to Tescos earlier today. It was packed, and aside from
the
grumbles about people seeing it as some perverse social club, I saw
several
children. There was the young couple with babies of different ages all
piled
into a trolley, with the spare in a pushchair. That was a couple, FFS.
There
were other couples, wandering around with their spawn.

Just think, you were once the spawn of your parents ...

Then there were the
children accompanied by one adult - I have no problems at all there, as
there's no reason to believe that these people have any alternative to
taking the children out when they need to shop. I see the first group as
inconsiderate, the second as not. In no way am I saying people shouldn't
go
shopping with their children (much though I personally would prefer that),
I
have been saying all along that when there is more than one person capable
of caring for the sprogs in a household, why do the whole bloody lot have
to
thoughtlessly impose themselves on everyone else to get a pint of milk and
the Sunday roast?

Perhaps they enjoy each others' company, that's why they're together in the
first place, they want to share experiences.

I do wonder how you know what they're buying, you're taking a get interest
in their purchases.

Spouse and I go shopping together because we both hate it and wouldn't
impose it on the other. We might as well share the bad experience as we
share good ones. And it's not quite so bad when we have each other there.
I'm sure others might think like that, I'm sorry that not everyone has
someone to share good and bad times with.

Mary

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message

If people
want to breed, that's fine, but don't inflict the results on others

Your parents inflicted you on us :-)

I'm climbing abourd my soapbox now, but in closing let me stir the waters
with another of my "themes"....

The local newspaper has been full of complaints that Boots the Chemist has
decided to close their "baby changing room". Why on earth should they have
one in the first place?

Didn't the newspaper say why?

Are they regarded as a charity or something?

Didn't the newspaper say?

I think you should ask the newspaper, not this ng.


Yes OK i'm in a bad mood. :-)

I'm sure it didn't show ...


Mary

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...
Does that apply to the damage your exhaust emissions do to the
atmosphere
and other people's health?

Yes, it does. The vast amounts of money raised in taxes on motorists
(mainly from fuel duty) partly go towards paying for the NHS.

The damage is still done, you're (i.e. we're) obviously not paying
enough.

Raise fuel duty!

*plonk*

You're not really entering into the spirit of this, are you?

That's what I thought too :-)

Mary's either on a different spiritual plane,

What's yours?

incredibly narrow minded,

By what measure?

or
deliberately trying to get a reaction (that's my option, going by her tale
of trying to get a reaction from her husband when she quite clearly
appeared
fit and healthy after a little bump parking),

er - how do you know how I appeared?

but whatever the case, it's
been quite fun

I think so too.

Although I'll be bowing out soon, before it gets too stale and pointless.

Same here. All good things come to an end. Even cars :-)

And bad ones.

Mary

"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...
Why shouldn't they? People enjoy newer cars, people enjoy having the
newer advances in technology. Why wait until the car dies (which could
be 10 years+), before buying a different car?

LOL! And making someone else have something not good enough for you?

If they're happy with what they're buying, and they've be honestly told
exactly what it is they're getting, then where's the problem? No-one's
forced at gunpoint to buy anything - if they choose to buy a 10-15 year
old
car, knowing exactly what it is and what small faults it has, then that's
their choice. As it is their choice as to exactly what they pay for it -
if
they can't buy it at a price that's acceptable to them, then they won't
buy
it. Simple really.

I said that if he was as hard up as that I'd pay him for the repair
and gave him a cheque there and then.

I hope he took you up on the offer.

I didn't wait for him to take up the offer.

Why not? If you damaged someone else's property, then it's only fair that
you pay for that damage.

You didn't read the post properly.

Oops - talking to myself again ...

It's not a case of how hard up a
person is, it's about you damaging their property which costs them to
have it fixed.

But I doubt that he had the 'damage' fixed.

Then he's been compensated for the fact that his car is still damaged, and
hence worth slightly less.

Bolli.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...

They're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

Quite, there are far more important things in life than things. Life
for instance. I guess these people have been sheltered all their
pathetic little lives and have never been in true fear of their own or
come come close to being killed. Both of those I have experienced.

Me too.

Property is not important, it's nice have, can make life more
comfortable or convient but you don't *need* it.

Endorsed.

Mary

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Why not? If you damaged someone else's property, then it's only fair
that
you pay for that damage.

You didn't read the post properly.

That is, indeed, a possibility! Just gone back and read that someone had
*claimed* that you inflicted this damage. I suppose it's fair to assume
that that implies that you didn't actually cause the damage - my apologies.

It's not a case of how hard up a
person is, it's about you damaging their property which costs them to
have it fixed.

But I doubt that he had the 'damage' fixed.

Then he's been compensated for the fact that his car is still damaged,
and
hence worth slightly less.

Bolli.

"Go Bollock to the dogs. I'll none of it."

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

Anyone part-exchanging a car for a guaranteed £1000 is getting
monumentally ripped off in the price of the car they're buying.

I was buying new so yes that £1000 would have fallen off the value the
moment I put the key in the lock and opened the door. But that applies
to all new cars, some drop *a lot* more a grand at that point.

Yes, true - read below.

The price of what I was buying was reasonable, I could probably have
haggled another few hundred quid off it but I very much doubt a £1000.

Unless it was something particularly rare or desirable, then the chances are
you probably could have done. And judging by the fact that the dealer was
offering a "guaranteed grand" for trading in any old shed, I'd wager that it
wasn't anything particularly rare or desirable.

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

joe parkin ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Perhaps people should stop confirming their stupidity and exercise
common sense.

Wooo... That's asking one *HELL* of a lot of the average supermarket
user..

Where do all the clever people shop?

Same place as everybody else. We're just massively outnumbered. Like the
well-behaved children.

Andy Turner ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

A "child" is a person under 18.

That's one definition of the word, but not the only one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
You might like to check up on definition 4.

Perhaps the supermarkets should clarify?

It means child as in a youngster. Y'see it clearly doesn't have to be
your own child. A person might have their niece, nephew or grandchild
with them.

So when they say "parent and child", they don't really mean "parent and
child"?

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:47:20 +0100, Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)
wrote:

FFS it's only a car.

Which costs many thousands of pounds.

So?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 21 May 2005 15:50:50 +0100, joe parkin wrote:

No, that is fraud, or extortion if they had threatened the payer in
anyway.

Don't be silly, it is not fraud or extortion at all.

Care to explain that how taking money to have something repaired but
not having said repair done is not fraud? Or if the money is obtained
via a threat "Pay for that ding or a kick your car door in..."
extortion.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article , Richard Colton
wrote:

What they WANT? How about them eating what they are provided with?

Now there's a wonderful idea (not). How would you like it if that happened
with you at every single meal?

I seem to remember that's exactly what happened. The idea being to provide a
nourishing meal rather than the junk I would no doubt have chosen, given the
preference.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

In article , Mary Fisher
wrote:

From my observation most of them won't. They've always been given the power
over their very well meaning parents of saying "No", when asked, "Do you
want ... ? " instead of "Here you are".

My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken nuggets or
crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she will eat nothing
else.


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

No, that is fraud, or extortion if they had threatened the payer in
anyway.

Don't be silly, it is not fraud or extortion at all.

Care to explain that how taking money to have something repaired but
not having said repair done is not fraud? Or if the money is obtained
via a threat "Pay for that ding or a kick your car door in..."
extortion.

It's really quite simple. Before the damage, that car was an object worth x
pounds. The repair would cost y pounds.

After the damage occured, the car is now worth x-y pounds.

Obviously second hand car values aren't as black and white as this, but
let's take this example:

There are two cars, both identical in every single way - age, mileage,
colour, specification etc. One is in absolutely pristine condition in every
way possible, and the other one is every bit as good bar one small scuff on
the bumper. The only difference between those two cars is that small amount
of damage, so it stands to reason that the one with the damage is worth less
than the perfect one by an amount equal to the cost of repairing the damage.

So it's not fraud by taking the the money equivalent to the repair cost and
not having it repaired. Not in the slightest. The car has been devalued as
a result, and that money compensates the owner of the car for their loss.

Hardly rocket science, is it?

--
Peter
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ =+=+=
your own email address at
what..a.load...of......********....dot....co.....d ot.......uk
(or ....dot......net) for just 10 quid a year.....
get circumcised to email me for more info

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:33:13 +0100, Conor wrote:

THey're things. They're only things. It doesn't matter.

Quite, there are far more important things in life than things. Life
for instance. I guess these people have been sheltered all their
pathetic little lives and have never been in true fear of their own
or
come come close to being killed. Both of those I have experienced.
Property is not important, it's nice have, can make life more
comfortable or convient but you don't *need* it.


Life is more important than things, but things are still important. In
fact theyre very important, as one's survival will not continue in
various real life situations without the right things. Things are why
we live to 70 not 30 now.


NT

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Taz" me@home wrote in message ...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


**** you Stuffed, or maybe Stuff you ****ed.
If I want to take my kids shopping with me, I bloody well will. They are
better behaved than your display of throwing toys out of a pram. Imagine
shopping with your kids at home wondering if they are safe, wondering if
they would like the tee shirt you are looking at for them, wondering if
they
would prefer a pizza or a Chinese, wondering if they would like that
video,
toy, etc.etc. Kids shop too ya ****wit, and if their parents are with
them,
well, you can temper the excesses that kids have. If I let my kids shop
without parental control, we would have more widescreen tellys, game
consoles, etc. than you could shake a stick at.

I rest my case.



Welcome to child friendly Britain eh?

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..


My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken nuggets
or
crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she will eat
nothing
else.

If they were witheld I doubt that she'd starve. But I could be wrong, it has
been known.

A daughter used to tell me that the only way she could get her son to eat
meat was to buy him the teddy-bear MRM from the supermarket. It was years
ago but I believe it's still available.

Strangely, he ate everything, without question or forcing, when he was here
(I cared for him while she was working until he went to school). We all ate
the same food at the same time.

He's now almost twenty and still likes to eat with us.

Mary

"Taz" me@home wrote in message ...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Taz" me@home wrote in message
...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


**** you Stuffed, or maybe Stuff you ****ed.
If I want to take my kids shopping with me, I bloody well will. They
are
better behaved than your display of throwing toys out of a pram.
Imagine
shopping with your kids at home wondering if they are safe, wondering
if
they would like the tee shirt you are looking at for them, wondering if
they
would prefer a pizza or a Chinese, wondering if they would like that
video,
toy, etc.etc. Kids shop too ya ****wit, and if their parents are with
them,
well, you can temper the excesses that kids have. If I let my kids shop
without parental control, we would have more widescreen tellys, game
consoles, etc. than you could shake a stick at.

I rest my case.



Welcome to child friendly Britain eh?

Why the obsession with being child friendly in this country? We have far
more people per square mile than almost any other nation, and yet we support
the creation of even more. And we even decide to then foist that creation on
others who don't actually think they're all that wonderful.

But that's not really the point, the point is you have quite clearly
demonstrated you are very very stupid, and yet still polluting the gene
pool. Have you ever considered trying to take responisbility for your
offspring, instead of trying to pass it onto them and everyone else? Is
Chinese or pizza really the best menu you can lay on for them? How would
they be out getting credit to come home with TVs and Playstations if you
didn't take them shopping?

From your post, I can only think that your brats are the spoilt fat criminal
wannabes that everyone else on this thread has said are the real problem
with kids and shops. And you, as the parent, are to blame for this. I have
no issue whatsoever with you taking them shopping if there is nobody to look
after them at home, but you go many steps further, and shoot yourself in the
foot. If only you'd aimed 3 feet higher before procreating...

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"raden" wrote in message
...

Brer Rabbit! It's years since I saw anything from you :-)

Yes Mary, it's long past your bed time

Indeed it was and I'd been asleep for almost two hours when you typed that.
You should read all posts first before replying, not like everyone else,
jumping in with both feet.


Believe me, I have trawled through all the tripe you've typed here and
in the ID card thread and I really think you need to take a step back
and engage your brain before typing

Really

--
geoff

Stuffed wrote:

Why the obsession with being child friendly in this country?

As opposed to being actively child unfriendly?

We have
far more people per square mile than almost any other nation,

Rubbish.

and yet
we support the creation of even more.

Yes because we need more. The average age of the population is rising and
is set to rise further. If we don't allow the population to grow enough to
have a working, and tax-paying, population large enough to support the
elderly we're going to be in trouble.

It's also now the case that the average person in the UK has less than 1
child, so the population is actually shrinking slightly, which is the cause
for some concern.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie ****.

Conor wrote:
In article , RichardK says...

Mary Fisher wrote:


What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse that
I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage there was
to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

You clearly weren't injured. You were telling him what had happened.


When I ran my grandads car into a lampost at a fairly substantial
speed, the only thing he was worried about was that I was OK. I was
obviously extremely upset at the state the car was in to which his
reply was "its only a mewtal box. You're OK." This coming from a man
who had very little to live on and it was the newest car he'd ever had
purely because he got it on Motability.

Doesn't Motability pay for the car, or at least a substantial amount?

Don't get me wrong - I am probably more zen than you'd imagine from my
posts about these things; however a prang into a lamppost is "that's
what insurance is for". Insurance isn't for some careless person denting
your car door because they couldn't be bothered to park where they could
open the door (assuming that you take due care when parking of course),
or wrap their fingers around the edge when opening. It's the little
expenses that are the most frustrating, and when caused by someone
else's carelesness, that's the biggie.

I really don't care about material things. I've had exactly the "anyone
hurt? Who cares" response to very expensive cars being written off.

It's easier to react calmly to the big things. Chop my leg off with an
axe and I'll swear a bit. I'll whine for hours about a splinter under my
nail

Richard


--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Mary Fisher wrote:

We've done that, been there, they aren't as efficient as the car we drive
today. They caused more damage through pollution (to humans), were less
efficient and didn't have the carrying capacity we need.

Don't know about your specific cars, but I tell you what, your new car
did considerably more damage than running an old one.

Hope you don't go on air travel ever

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

AstraVanMan wrote:

Heh, our local Proton dealer is offering £3000 minimum trade in on the
£11,000 Impian. My dad, I hope being sarcastic, suggested trading in the
Subaru for one. I pointed out the Impian has a stupid name and the Ignis
4Grip seems like the best crappy little car to buy right now, and then
said: "But, if you want to take that deal, give me the Subaru and I'll
trade in the Volvo 740 - it's still got 2 weeks tax and a few month MOT
and I think it'll make it..."

So today we're test driving the Ignis.


Was the £3k guaranteed trade-in only on the £11k Impian though?

Yep.

The Ignis was dismissed as having horrid seats - didn't even drive it.
Current candidates a Shogun Pinin 5dr with full leather, A/C, 3,000
miles on the clock on a 53 reg, or a 1.6i (no HDI, too noisy) Berlingo
Desire Modutop with A/C.

Did I mention I am sick of cars?

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Mary Fisher wrote:
"RichardK" wrote in message
...



Sorry, but one of the fundamental problems with modern parenting is this
lack of respect for other people's property.


I agree that it seems to be more common these days. But it always did -
Cicero talked about it many centuries ago :-(

Then it's time people learned. I've learned. Most of the people I know
have learned.

If someone gives me the
"It's only a car" attitude then I assume their own car matters little to
them, and they will earn a bloody great bootprint in the door (my boots
weigh something like 7lbs per foot and can inflict one hell of a dent).

And it will make you feel much better? Or like the child who dented yours?

It will give them some idea of the frustration I feel, and if they
aren't prepared to compensate me for the damage they did to my car,
perhaps they will spend the money on repairing theirs. They lose the
same amount either way.

Damage my property and pay. Assume it's your right to damage my property
because, hey, it's just property, then pay /and/ get no sympathy.


I don't damage people's property wilfully. But nor do I assume that all
damage is wilful.

I am aware of variations. Denting someone's car in a car park is a
result of the inability of the adults to control the childen, or the
adults themselves, to exercise due care, or decent respect, of other's
property.

If a car smashes into my wall in an accident, then I'm not going to
knock down their wall in response. If you're too stupid to see the world
in anything other than black and white terms, or understand the concept
of respect for property vs. an accident, then you perhaps should buy a
Renault 4 or something equally easy to repair.

And some of those little rubber things for the edge of the door.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Mary Fisher wrote:
"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...

It's someone else's property. If it gets damaged by someone other than
the
owner, then it's up to that person to put it back to how it was.


Does that apply to the damage your exhaust emissions do to the atmosphere
and other people's health?

Until you stop driving, heating your house, owning anything
manufacturered in a factory, eating prepackaged food, owning clothes
made of man-made fibers, using air travel, using trains, using
electricity unless you are generating it yourself using hydro, wind or
solar power, then you can shut up right now on that particular argument.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Mary Fisher wrote:
"RichardK" wrote in message
...

Mary Fisher wrote:


What upset me was that when I went indoors and dramatically told Spouse
that I'd crashed into something his response was to ask how much damage
there was to the car, he didn't ask if I was injured.

You clearly weren't injured. You were telling him what had happened.


Injuries don't always show.

True. Let me know when they've diagnosed what damage was done mentally.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Richard Colton wrote:
"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..

In article , Richard
Colton
wrote:


or what they want for their tea.

What they WANT? How about them eating what they are provided with?


Now there's a wonderful idea (not). How would you like it if that happened
with you at every single meal?

They're children. They aren't going to made the best decisions regarding
their health and nutrition.

Children are not fed correctly and everyone wants a scapegoat. Can't
control your brat? ADHD. ADHD? Oh, it's additives. Why are there
additives in the food? It's what they wanted.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Mary Fisher wrote:
"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...

It's someone else's property. If it gets damaged by someone other than
the
owner, then it's up to that person to put it back to how it was.

Does that apply to the damage your exhaust emissions do to the atmosphere
and other people's health?

Yes, it does. The vast amounts of money raised in taxes on motorists
(mainly from fuel duty) partly go towards paying for the NHS.


The damage is still done, you're (i.e. we're) obviously not paying enough.

Raise fuel duty!

Raise air duty first. Personal liberty and freedom of movement within a
functional lifestyle space is far more important than long-distance
leisure travel.

Richard


--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

Conor wrote:
In article , Andy Turner
says...

On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:13:13 +0100, Conor
wrote:


In article , Andy Turner
says...


If the edge of a door hits the centre of a panel of another door it's
very much a weak spot in a door - it's easily dented.


Guess you've never had a decent car then? Decent as in "build quality".

Name me a car make or even model where you wouldn't expect that to
happen. One of these "decent" cars you allude to.


BMW E34 - took someone taking a running drop kick to put a dint in my
wifes..
Rover SD1.
Rover P6.

No way. My P6 dented way too easily. My Beetle is pretty dent-proof.
I've found dents in the Scorpio and it's built like a tank.

Richard

--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Taz" me@home wrote in message ...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...

"Taz" me@home wrote in message
...

"Stuffed" wrote in message
...


**** you Stuffed, or maybe Stuff you ****ed.
If I want to take my kids shopping with me, I bloody well will. They
are
better behaved than your display of throwing toys out of a pram.
Imagine
shopping with your kids at home wondering if they are safe, wondering
if
they would like the tee shirt you are looking at for them, wondering
if
they
would prefer a pizza or a Chinese, wondering if they would like that
video,
toy, etc.etc. Kids shop too ya ****wit, and if their parents are with
them,
well, you can temper the excesses that kids have. If I let my kids
shop
without parental control, we would have more widescreen tellys, game
consoles, etc. than you could shake a stick at.

I rest my case.



Welcome to child friendly Britain eh?

Why the obsession with being child friendly in this country? We have far
more people per square mile than almost any other nation, and yet we
support
the creation of even more. And we even decide to then foist that creation
on
others who don't actually think they're all that wonderful.

But that's not really the point, the point is you have quite clearly
demonstrated you are very very stupid, and yet still polluting the gene
pool. Have you ever considered trying to take responisbility for your
offspring, instead of trying to pass it onto them and everyone else? Is
Chinese or pizza really the best menu you can lay on for them? How would
they be out getting credit to come home with TVs and Playstations if you
didn't take them shopping?

From your post, I can only think that your brats are the spoilt fat
criminal
wannabes that everyone else on this thread has said are the real problem
with kids and shops. And you, as the parent, are to blame for this. I have
no issue whatsoever with you taking them shopping if there is nobody to
look
after them at home, but you go many steps further, and shoot yourself in
the
foot. If only you'd aimed 3 feet higher before procreating...


My kids are the type who will stop to help old grannies, bring home injured
birds, draw get well cards, hug their parents at any given moment of the
day. Thats the way they were brought up. I'm fed up of arseholes moaning
about kids. Mind you, I have seen some families I would willingly string up,
I can't stand the little buggers who run screaming down the isles with
oblivious parents.....My point about tellies and pizzas was tongue in cheek.
Granted this may not be obvious. What I'm trying to say, very badly, is
don't paint us all with the same brush.