Disabled spot sign that needs to be used everywhere.

Purple Grapefruit · Post by **Purple Grapefruit** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:21 am 0

Space Cowboy wrote:
grue wrote:You obviously -as you have proved countless times- are a far right winger with everything that goes with it so
That's it, retreat in to the fascist left wing mode of labelling anyone who doesn't think the same as you as being right wing. A pretty feeble response, but not altogether surprising.

Well excuse me being a left wing fascist labeller as well, but i
think of you as being right wing because you say right wing
things.If that comes as a surprise to you, well sorry for
misunderstanding your postings.

.........

........especially your sig.

Space Cowboy's sig wrote: So we look back on the embers of New Labour and what do we see. Blair, Prescott, Brown. Jesus f***ing Christ.

How any Labour supporter can look back at the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher and feel morally superior just takes my breath away.

CharlieF · Post by **CharlieF** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:27 am 0

I believe this thread needs a

and a

stark · Post by **stark** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:08 am 0

gravy wrote:
Space Cowboy wrote:Yeah, I am serious, as in I am making a point. It's fine to describe someone as a wankstain, and make a generalisation about BMW drivers, and all because someone struggles to walk - but presumably they're going to be walking around the store? Sure, I know it's not fluffy and all, but then saying "go and shoot yourself or something" isn't fluffy either. I guess I just haven't quite got it, don't yet fully understand what bigotries and generalisations are acceptable and which aren't. Must try harder.
He said a wankstain of a BMW driver, not a generalisation about BMW drivers in er... general. He also really clearly said she has to walk around the store but the less walking the better. Fucknuts not parking in the disabled spots while being no big deal for them is a big help to her.

Given that I'm sure you'd agree that parking in the wrong place is a bit of a cunts trick. Is that something we can all (apart from Stark) agree on?

oh go-on misquote me now . i never said i park in the spaces and i dont.

and for the record gravy, my local supermarket carpark is run by the local council, not by the supermarket

phattslagg · Post by **phattslagg** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:12 am 0

fdave wrote: I've got a bit of an issue with 'single-parent' parking just because I feel people have got a choice whether to have kids/split with their partner, whereas disabled people don't have a choice.
[/more wood on the bonfire]

Where does it say 'single-parent' parking?? The main advantage of these spaces is the additional space on either side, because getting your kids in and out of the car can be very difficult if there is not enough space. You have to be able to lean in and over their seats to be able to do the belt up, and lifting them into a car seat from an awkward angle through a narrow gap can be a back-wrecking exercise in itself. Hint: try thinking about things just a little bit.

stark · Post by **stark** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:22 am 0

phattslagg wrote:
fdave wrote: I've got a bit of an issue with 'single-parent' parking just because I feel people have got a choice whether to have kids/split with their partner, whereas disabled people don't have a choice.
[/more wood on the bonfire]
Where does it say 'single-parent' parking?? The main advantage of these spaces is the additional space on either side, because getting your kids in and out of the car can be very difficult if there is not enough space. You have to be able to lean in and over their seats to be able to do the belt up, and lifting them into a car seat from an awkward angle through a narrow gap can be a back-wrecking exercise in itself. Hint: try thinking about things just a little bit.

and like i pointed out before, if they made all the spaces wider we wouldnt have an issue

phattslagg · Post by **phattslagg** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:25 am 0

stark wrote:

and like i pointed out before, if they made all the spaces wider we wouldnt have an issue

If they did that, there would be a significant reduction in the overall number of spaces. Providing about 10 parent+toddler spaces has a negative affect on practically no-one, apart from the terminally selfish, that is.

kalmar · Post by **kalmar** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:31 am 0

Tell you what Stark, here's a way to play them at their own game: subvert the Nanny State and shortcut the lavish acres of carpark dedicated to the underserving disabled and lazy parents: go on a bike.

Seriously, you can ride right up to the entrance, hell, you can park in the foyer if you want, they'll have never seen a bike before and won't know what to do.

Do your shopping (you are shopping for one, right?), put it in a rucksack or a pannier bag and out of there - bunnyhop the pedestrian crossing (peds are such losers) and cut through the flower beds - no more waiting and fuming while pastel coloured bimbo boxes full of screaming toddlers reverse erratically out of their double-wide spaces.

Who needs carparks at all? Overprivileged wusses, that's who!

fritx · Post by **fritx** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:32 am 0

stark wrote:b) ok i chucked in the muslim reference for shits n giggles, my point being that increasingly there is a 20 metre exclusion zone around store entrances because of special parking spaces. my question , though somewhat veiled , was where does it stop.

I see what you did there

benedictw · Post by **benedictw** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:33 am 0

fdave wrote: Or does every disabled bay count? Or would it be fine with less if there was more disabled bay 'policing'? How many times have you found someone who's not disabled in a disabled bay? Is that the major problem and the reason why there has to be so many?

Tis a fair point - there is a LOT of disabled/parent with kids pay fake parking going on and there is very little enforcement.

I find I get into the shop a lot quicker if I just part at the quiet corner of the carpark rather than trying to find a 'close' one.

Making some of the bays 'disabled\parent' depending on time would be pretty sensible. We'll need time dependant e-ink or something though.

HGFB · Post by **HGFB** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:33 am 0

phattslagg wrote:
fdave wrote: I've got a bit of an issue with 'single-parent' parking just because I feel people have got a choice whether to have kids/split with their partner, whereas disabled people don't have a choice.
[/more wood on the bonfire]
Where does it say 'single-parent' parking?? The main advantage of these spaces is the additional space on either side, because getting your kids in and out of the car can be very difficult if there is not enough space. You have to be able to lean in and over their seats to be able to do the belt up, and lifting them into a car seat from an awkward angle through a narrow gap can be a back-wrecking exercise in itself. Hint: try thinking about things just a little bit.

Didn't they used to call them "Mother with child" parking? Perhaps that's where the misunderstanding comes from.

I'm 34. If I'm helping my mum with her shopping do I get to park there?

The Captain · Post by **The Captain** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:33 am 0

phattslagg wrote: Hint: try thinking about things just a little bit.

That's the third thing I've seen on YakYak in as many hours that I would dearly love to have printed on a t-shirt. Or perhaps a national poster campaign.

And fdave, there are a lot of people who don't have a choice whether they have children/split up with their partners. Life's like that and we're all in it together - you may find yourself in situations when you have to call upon the goodwill of others.

I think there are clearly a few people on here who are aggrieved because of having been treated unfairly and have battened down the hatches. For every lone mum or MS sufferer who needs that space at the front of the supermarket there'll be at least five SUV-driving cunts who have one teenager rattling round in the back of the car-truck and leave them in there while they avail themselves of the parent/child parking to nip in and get some fags. And it's these people, the every-man-for-himselfers, that make the whole world grind to a halt, and give the starks and Space Cowboys fuel for their singular arguments.

stark · Post by **stark** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:38 am 0

kalmar wrote:Tell you what Stark, here's a way to play them at their own game: subvert the Nanny State and shortcut the lavish acres of carpark dedicated to the underserving disabled and lazy parents: go on a bike.

Seriously, you can ride right up to the entrance, hell, you can park in the foyer if you want, they'll have never seen a bike before and won't know what to do.

Do your shopping (you are shopping for one, right?), put it in a rucksack or a pannier bag and out of there - bunnyhop the pedestrian crossing (peds are such losers) and cut through the flower beds - no more waiting and fuming while pastel coloured bimbo boxes full of screaming toddlers reverse erratically out of their double-wide spaces.

Who needs carparks at all? Overprivileged wusses, that's who!

oh do go climb out of your own backside will you

gravy · Post by **gravy** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:41 am 0

stark wrote: oh go-on misquote me now . i never said i park in the spaces and i dont.

and for the record gravy, my local supermarket carpark is run by the local council, not by the supermarket

I didn't quote you let alone misquote you.

The "except stark" comment is about the pointlessness of trying to bring you into any consensus cos your entire stance on this thread is one of indefensible contrariness.

FFS

We've got 2nd hand reports; one from someone with a shattered spine and another with MS both saying that disabled spots are really helpful when available. And that's coupled with a bit of bellyaching from able bodied you that you can't park nearer to the store entrance.

You're onto a loser if you really think both arguments have equal validity.