In thinking Mother and Baby car parking spots....

[Writerwannabe83]

....are actually for parents with babies/toddlers?

It was always my understanding that the wide spaces are for parents who have car seats and pushchairs to contend with, not for parents of 10 year olds who just want to park nearer to the shop, like a family that I saw today?!

I'm only moaning because I've just twisted and scraped my back trying to remove my car seat from my half closed back door door, in a very tight parking space whilst trying not to scratch the car I'm parked next to.

I was secretly fuming at those in the Mother and Baby spaces who surely shouldn't have been there, like the one I mentioned above.

And breathe

No it's not in my imagination Slarti. It's in the text of your posts. And a large number of other posters have read them the same way.

I've actually specifically stated on numerous occasions that I don't equate the circumstances and that the only common characteristic is that both groups would benefit from more space, but to differing degrees. You're so determined to take offence that you're imagining all sorts of implications to my posts. You're doing the very opposite of reading the text.

No Slarti, that is the very first time that you have mentioned 'differing degrees' so please stop being disingenuous.

You seem to believe that everyone on here is misreading your posts. Have you ever heard of the expression 'everyone's out of step except me' because that really sums up your attitude on this thread.

One might also call it mob mentality the clue is when people start accusing you of having said something you haven't, or having not said something you have because they've seen someone else accuse you and taken it as fact

I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you Slarti. Your posts are there for all to see, as are the reactions of other posters who have all read them in the same way. That is fact, whatever retrospective interpretation you choose to assign to them.

Leave slarti alone fgs

No Slarti, that is the very first time that you have mentioned 'differing degrees' so please stop being disingenuous.

At 20:59 (on page 7) I said:

"I've simply said that both groups find more space useful, which they do, don't they? Not to the same degree..."

If you go back and read my contributions without the preconceived ideas then you'll see I've never stated anything about equivalence at all.

"benefit from" and "require as an essential" are two completely different things.

Again you're trying to imply that when I said both groups benefit from more space that what I'm actually saying is that they do so to the same degree and have the same needs. If that's what I meant, that's what I'd have written. You need to accept that you are, for whatever reason, looking for offence.

Yes but you weren't differentiating between parents and disabled people. You were saying that disabled people didn't all have the same degree of need so all disabled people should be lumped in with parents in their need and assignment of designated spaces.

I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you Slarti. Your posts are there for all to see, as are the reactions of other posters who have all read them in the same way. That is fact, whatever retrospective interpretation you choose to assign to them.

With the greatest respect vintage (not that you are affording me much) who put you in a position to tell me what I mean and to accuse me of retrospectively assigning interpretations to my own posts??

You're right, my posts are there in black and white.

I am telling you how your posts read to me and to all the other posters on here who have responded to the Slarti. We cannot go by anything other than what we read, and your posts read as being disrespectful to the needs of disabled citizens.

As you have agreed, your posts are there in black and white so if you're happy to leave them as stands and let other posters make up their own minds, I'm happy to withdraw from this argument.

As I said, let's leave your posts to stand for themselves. You obviously feel they read clearly and fairly, so if you're happy with that there's no point in arguing about it. Other posters can make up their own minds about them.

We cannot go by anything other than what we read

That's a joke, right??

I say, they both have a need of more space. I'm accused of saying they both have an equal need of more space.

I say, both groups benefit from more space to differing degrees, I'm accused of failing to acknowledge the differences and of ever saying such a thing.

That's the pattern for this entire conversation, it's ridiculous. But rather than admit you've got the wrong end of the stick you're going to keep digging aren't you?

And please don't call me a 'dick' again. Namecalling is usually the last resort of someone who has nothing of any further value to add to a debate.

No Slarti. I've said I'm happy to say no more and let your posts speak for themselves. You are the one who seems determined to keep the argument going.

And saying I was retrospectively assigning my own interpretation to my posts isn't the same as just telling me how you're reading them, it's asserting that I'm backtracking, that I originally meant one thing and I'm retrospectively assigning a different interpretation. You've got to be quite far up your own arse to go around telling people what they mean just so it fits with an argument you've decided you're going to have.

I expect the Op has lost the will to live now guys but I'm sure it was all very interesting anyway, your personal argument. Not

You really are very vulgar aren't you?

As I've said, I'm happy to let your posts, including your last few, stand for themselves.

I can't say fairer than that.

Op

Yanbu

Right. It was me who said I was pissed off that my local sainsburys had lumped their disabled spaces and p&c spaces together, thereby in my opinion creating equivalence between blue badge holders and parents of children up to 12. You replied

Since when has a visual impairment equated to having no legs? Despite both being eligible for a blue badge, it doesn't, of course. Having spaces that are useful to people with children and people with varying but not equal disabilities isn't a statement of equivalence, it's simply a practical measure that accommodates an overlap in needs, namely more space

What exactly was your point? The nuance is clearly too subtle for many of us.

Slarti, some of your posts seemed to be saying that P&C and disabled spaces could be combined as one type, as they both provide more space.

This is putting them on a par because it implies equivalent importance. Numbers of disabled bays are governed by planning regulations, P&C spaces are a courtesy only and could be got rid of if they wanted.

There is not the option to provide 'more bigger spaces' in a lot of circumstances. Dual spaces would be filled up by parents leaving disabled people unable to park.

Do you understand why people have taken offense to your remarks yet?

The Sainsbury's near me combined disabled and p&c spaces a while back too. I could never park as they were full of non-BB holders. Then they increased the number so disabled people could still park. But they were always full of non-BB holders. Then they made them all disabled parking only but they were always full of non-BB holders because they'd parked there in the past and apparently couldn't read the new signs. Then they fenced the whole area in with a barrier that disabled people got a swipe card for. Then they were always empty because disabled people couldn't reach the swipe thingy without getting out of their cars first. So I went to Morrisons across the road instead but their disabled spaces were always full and I frequently got a bollocking for parking in a p&c space instead. I don't go shopping anymore. I rarely even leave my house. It's too much bother.

Please, please please do not use the word 'fucktard' it is really offensive and hurtful.