Disabled bay abuser confronted.
Discussion
So he is videoing the chaps kids and sticks it on the interweb for all to see, I'm sure if someone did that to your children you wouldn't be to happy, plus there was no need to whip out the camera and get all aggressive, only one result is likely, seems like it's a mix of anger and jealousy judging by the video makers own comments, sorry but I have nil sympathy for him, in fact he was lucky he didn't get a proper kicking
Chipmunk1 said:
So he is videoing the chaps kids and sticks it on the interweb for all to see, I'm sure if someone did that to your children you wouldn't be to happy, plus there was no need to whip out the camera and get all aggressive, only one result is likely, seems like it's a mix of anger and jealousy judging by the video makers own comments, sorry but I have nil sympathy for him, in fact he was lucky he didn't get a proper kicking
Have you read any of the rest of the thread? He was threatened by this chap so he got his phone out to film.He didn't really film the guys kids, nor I suspect is he some sort of Paedo
The whole sorry incident wouldn't have started if the RR driver hadn't parked in a disabled space. As for grabbing the guy almost knocking over someone who uses sticks, its all a bit caveman isn't it.
The whole filming the kids thing is basically RR man trying to divert attention and make the cameraman look bad, the kids were not the subject of his video, the driver was but RR man wanted to get back at him so he escalated it, RR man isnt remotely bothered about his kids in the car he just wanted to make the guy with the phone look/feel bad, he could have just gone somewhere else and avoided the whole thing, pathetic really.
J4CKO said:
The whole filming the kids thing is basically RR man trying to divert attention and make the cameraman look bad, the kids were not the subject of his video, the driver was but RR man wanted to get back at him so he escalated it, RR man isnt remotely bothered about his kids in the car he just wanted to make the guy with the phone look/feel bad, he could have just gone somewhere else and avoided the whole thing, pathetic really.
Not sure that is entirely fair.If someone had a camera out and was shouting swear words and abuse at me in front of my child, I would be absolutely furious.
That said, I wouldn't have done what RR did at all. He's an idiot.
The camera guy does himself no favours in two respects: (1) 'self-entitled' isn't a word and makes no sense even as a concept and (2) he makes out that the driver grabbed him because he is disabled, which is obvious nonsense - the driver grabbed him despite him being disabled, whereas he had banked on the guy not getting physical no matter how provoked.
On this last point, I remember a kid at my school who used to bully and even hit people and then say 'you can't hit me because I have a heart defect and I might die' (or something like that - I forget what exactly he suffered from). It always worked, to be fair to the kid, but it wasn't very moral! This guy reminded me of that - he can be as abusive as he likes because nobody is going to hit a guy who uses walking sticks.
ORD said:
J4CKO said:
The whole filming the kids thing is basically RR man trying to divert attention and make the cameraman look bad, the kids were not the subject of his video, the driver was but RR man wanted to get back at him so he escalated it, RR man isnt remotely bothered about his kids in the car he just wanted to make the guy with the phone look/feel bad, he could have just gone somewhere else and avoided the whole thing, pathetic really.
Not sure that is entirely fair.If someone had a camera out and was shouting swear words and abuse at me in front of my child, I would be absolutely furious.
That said, I wouldn't have done what RR did at all. He's an idiot.
The camera guy does himself no favours in two respects: (1) 'self-entitled' isn't a word and makes no sense even as a concept and (2) he makes out that the driver grabbed him because he is disabled, which is obvious nonsense - the driver grabbed him despite him being disabled, whereas he had banked on the guy not getting physical no matter how provoked.
On this last point, I remember a kid at my school who used to bully and even hit people and then say 'you can't hit me because I have a heart defect and I might die' (or something like that - I forget what exactly he suffered from). It always worked, to be fair to the kid, but it wasn't very moral! This guy reminded me of that - he can be as abusive as he likes because nobody is going to hit a guy who uses walking sticks.
It is commented on by 'stick man' in the video....
Two clear observations here to me:
1) Don't park in disabled spaces and you are highly unlikely TO BE THE CAUSE of such a confrontation and escalation
2) Allow pricks to behave like pricks and it becomes the norm!
3) Bullying pricks by definition bully VICTIMS and lastly
4) Don't escalate something unless you are prepared for it to escalate (IYSWIM)
Ok, that's four
thelawnet said:
Also, the filmer is a racist t
t, see the description "he then forgets that not everyone else isn't like his Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale etc etc noncey brothers"
and then
"he made a quick exit and drove off, unfortunately it wasn't straight into a brick wall, a brick wall with boxes of bees behind it and a large angry goat.......Actually scrap the goat, we all know what would happen."
Racist?t, see the description "he then forgets that not everyone else isn't like his Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale etc etc noncey brothers"and then
"he made a quick exit and drove off, unfortunately it wasn't straight into a brick wall, a brick wall with boxes of bees behind it and a large angry goat.......Actually scrap the goat, we all know what would happen."
Edited by thelawnet on Saturday 18th April 23:33
Slaav said:
The claim in the video text is that the camera was brought out due to RR man's abuse and threatening behaviour? We have no idea exactly what happened at the start of the incident!
It is commented on by 'stick man' in the video....
Two clear observations here to me:
1) Don't park in disabled spaces and you are highly unlikely TO BE THE CAUSE of such a confrontation and escalation
2) Allow pricks to behave like pricks and it becomes the norm!
3) Bullying pricks by definition bully VICTIMS and lastly
4) Don't escalate something unless you are prepared for it to escalate (IYSWIM)
Ok, that's four
All good points. Both men were trying to be bullies, though.It is commented on by 'stick man' in the video....
Two clear observations here to me:
1) Don't park in disabled spaces and you are highly unlikely TO BE THE CAUSE of such a confrontation and escalation
2) Allow pricks to behave like pricks and it becomes the norm!
3) Bullying pricks by definition bully VICTIMS and lastly
4) Don't escalate something unless you are prepared for it to escalate (IYSWIM)
Ok, that's four
I agree that good people shouldn't turn a blind eye. If might well have asked the RR driver what he was doing in a disabled space, but I wouldn't have been abusive with small children in the car.
ORD said:
Not sure that is entirely fair.
If someone had a camera out and was shouting swear words and abuse at me in front of my child, I would be absolutely furious.
That said, I wouldn't have done what RR did at all. He's an idiot.
Sounds pretty fair to me.If someone had a camera out and was shouting swear words and abuse at me in front of my child, I would be absolutely furious.
That said, I wouldn't have done what RR did at all. He's an idiot.
If the guy in the RR wanted to avoid a big scene in front of his kids or his kids getting filmed he could have just drove away but instead he had to play the big man.
Or even easier, don't park in a disabled bay in the first place and you won't get an angry disabled person up in your face.
Some people have been saying the camera man was looking for a reaction, that may well be true but you could also argue that parking in a disabled space is asking for a reaction.
thelawnet said:
Hackney said:
If he can justify himself, why wouldn't he?
Why the f*** should he? He's not accountable to Walter Mitty. And especially not if Walter Mitty was abusive first.Hackney said:
Surely it's easier to say, "I'm parked here because......" than get out the car (having previously been abusive) calling the other guy a nonce, generally being a tt.
Why the f*** should he? Perhaps he has some family crisis he is dealing with. He doesn't have to explain himself to Walter Mitty.t.Hackney said:
Becoming more common, abuse / aggression rather than reason.
For example, I was out shopping with the Mrs and the little one this afternoon. A guy in front of us leapt up from a seat and pushed his (empty) pushchair past us bumping into ours.
"Hey be careful mate!"
"F**k off, my daughter's......" I missed the end of it, but whatever his reason is his first reaction was "f**k off" rather than "sorry, but...."
Bumping into someone is not comparable to being an unpaid traffic warden.For example, I was out shopping with the Mrs and the little one this afternoon. A guy in front of us leapt up from a seat and pushed his (empty) pushchair past us bumping into ours.
"Hey be careful mate!"
"F**k off, my daughter's......" I missed the end of it, but whatever his reason is his first reaction was "f**k off" rather than "sorry, but...."
k should he?Why the f
k should he?Perhaps if you change your perspective to, "why the f
k wouldn't he?" you'll be a less aggressive person yourself.The RR driver's reaction aggravates the situation.
The guy with the pushchair - which is comparable given the reaction - aggravates the situation.
To coin a phrase, why the f
k would you aggravate a situation when you can diffuse it?You yourself are a exhibiting the same behaviour.
Your post, "why the f
k should he" twice, when you could say, "why should he?" or "what if he has a reason?" etc, etcBut thanks for helping prove my point.
brunbread said:
What you didn't see was the 100 other disabled spaces.
Tesco near me has gone completely overkill on disabled and mother and baby space
Reckon it has 500 spaces. At 100 are disabled, 100 are mother and baby.
Strange thing is the mother and baby spaces are closer to the entrance than the disabled spaces.
That's so you don't have to push a pushchair around a car park where people are likely driving too fast, and may reverse out without looking properly first.Tesco near me has gone completely overkill on disabled and mother and baby space
Reckon it has 500 spaces. At 100 are disabled, 100 are mother and baby.
Strange thing is the mother and baby spaces are closer to the entrance than the disabled spaces.
Oh, and "parent and child" spaces, please. It's the 21st century, Dads can go shopping too.
Sump said:
poo at Paul's said:
Dusty964 said:
Jasandjules said:
To be clear you think it is acceptable to physically attack a person with walking aids because they are filming you?
Wafting a camera around and giving a stranger some verbal?Sorry, but hes provoking the guy for a response, and gets the one he didnt want.
Id agree. Both as bad as each other.
If that's the case, the guy in the rangey is the one at fault, entirely.
It's clear the camera guy has stuck his nose in from the beginning.
I regularly park in parent and child spaces. I have no kids, and never have children with me. If that makes me selfish I don't care. I fail to see how having a child means you have to park closer to the supermarket, or need a bigger space. it's just a marketing gimmick for self entitled parents.
I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
Edit - just realised the bloke is disabled. So I wouldn't hit him. If he was just an able bodied gob ste I would have no qualms though.
I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
Edit - just realised the bloke is disabled. So I wouldn't hit him. If he was just an able bodied gob s
te I would have no qualms though. Edited by photosnob on Sunday 19th April 18:05
blueg33 said:
yonex said:
People without children that park in P&C spaces = selfish wkers
Able bodied people that park in disabled spaces = selfish wkers
Same mentality. Supermarkets should clamp and fine them as they haven't got the basic manners to understand simple things.
Accurate summary. kersAble bodied people that park in disabled spaces = selfish w
kersSame mentality. Supermarkets should clamp and fine them as they haven't got the basic manners to understand simple things.
king fat and lazy that they cant be bothered to walk across a car park ffs?Edited by wolves_wanderer on Sunday 19th April 18:07
photosnob said:
I regularly park in parent and child spaces. I have no kids, and never have children with me. If that makes me selfish I don't care. I fail to see how having a child means you have to park closer to the supermarket, or need a bigger space. it's just a marketing gimmick for self entitled parents.
I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
You're an idiot.I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
wolves_wanderer said:
photosnob said:
I regularly park in parent and child spaces. I have no kids, and never have children with me. If that makes me selfish I don't care. I fail to see how having a child means you have to park closer to the supermarket, or need a bigger space. it's just a marketing gimmick for self entitled parents.
I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
You're an idiot.I have had a comment once from a women with a toddler - "oh it's the man with the invisible child". Her husband apologised to me. And they started having a row when I walked into the shop.
If someone started speaking to me like the bloke with the camera, I wouldn't be so nice. I think the bloke was well within his right to give the idiot a crack. He was clearly being aggressive - I'd say the bloke got out of his car to speak to the irrational man and then had to take action to defend himself! He was in fear of violence from the man. That would be my defence if I was charged - and it would work.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff