Take this morning. I got an error to resolve. Naturally, I cannot cite specifics, but the general gist of it was:
- I went to "the fridge" to "get some milk"
- There was a "post-it note" on the "door" saying "No milk in the fridge"
- I checked the "fridge"
- It had "been restocked with milk!"
- The problem is that the note says "No milk in the fridge", but there is. How can I "get any milk" if there's "no milk in the fridge" like the note says?
So I return the problem back to the "help"desk saying that the note doesn't prove there is "no milk", just written by someone when there was "no milk". As "milk" is actually there now, either the note can be discarded, or updated to say "fridge restocked with milk".
And what does the gormster come back with?
"Can you explain what this means that the person has to do?"
WTF?
How goddamn thick do you have to be, that you get completely flummoxed by an out of date note that has quite obviously been superseded? Jesus! Seriously - it's not rocket science! You can feckin SEE the "milk" there - and because the note says there isn't any, you still think there's no "milk" there - I actually have to explain that the physical presence of the item you want overrides the note saying there isn't any. That you can actually pick up the "milk" you require despite what the note says, and you can throw away the note or update it because YOU CAN FECKING SEE FOR YOURSELF IT'S BLOODY THERE! TAKE IT! FOR FECK SAKE - DON'T PESTER ME WITH YOUR GORMSTROSITY!!
Confused by someone noting something missing, and later it being there.
This is why so-called "Normal" folk baffle me.
Either I'm hyper-intelligent, or we employ some really thick as shit Jeremy Kyle rejects.
Or maybe it really is just me!
Take this example:
You're in charge of a very young child. Parent, nanny, babysitter - whatever. Now, you decide to take the under-5 to the park. Now, the park is quite small and very crowded. Moving items such a swings, roundabouts, slides, see-saws abound. There's a mix of young & old kids. Now, in the park, do you:
- Dump the kid in the playground and bugger off elsewhere
- Leave the kid to it's own devices, whilst you sit at a table elsewhere
- Stay nearby with other parents, each keeping watch on everyone's kids, so anyone can step in if there's an accident or attempted abduction
- Insist the council put barriers around the apparatus, so your kids can run riot and don't have to worry about checking on them in order to spend more time gossiping and texting
- watch out for your offspring only, and simply accept you can't watch them all the time as it only takes a split second for them to disappear off, and any resultant injury is the fault of the council
Apparently, such parental vigilance is only adopted by parents who stand around laughing and pointing when a child has an accident. More so, every one of those adopting that responsible stance are irresponsible monsters running through a prism of prejudice who can't be bothered with their brood. Why, any such parent keeping an eye on their kids is just waiting for them to injure themselves, so the parents, whilst having a good laugh, can use that accident to smugly assert their superiority over the parents of the brain damaged child!
Well, bugger me!
And there was me thinking parents were SUPPOSED to be responsible and look out for their progeny!
Apparently, you're supposed to eliminate ANY POSSIBILITY of an accident in the first place. In order to prevent hazards, you need to put more hazards in - small fencing to fall over, tall fencing to run into, fencing with gates so you can still walk through into the danger zone, fencing below areas you can topple off and impale yourself on. Fence off everything in the crowded area so it's so crowded you can't even get near the equipment so that there is no possibility of injury. Then the parents can take their kids to the park, so that even if every single parent "looks away for a split second" simultaneously, there's no-where the kids can go, so the parents can let their kids roam free unsupervised without fear of injury.
I don't know how the feck I survived the 70s - what with being watched like a hawk and prevented from stupidly walking in front of moving equipment. Heck - how I even lived when we had playgrounds with concrete and the "running barrels". Jesus, how did I ever learn to cope in later life with responsible parents looking out for me and making me aware of dangers?
But, nowadays, it's not the parents job to educate or look after their offspring. The Council needs to remove any potential threat, as parents should be able to enjoy the park without having to monitor or supervise their feral brats every five minutes. And if there IS an accident, it's always someone else's fault. Preferably one where an enterprising scummy mummy can make a few thousand off've InjuryLawyers4U type gits.
Oh, sorry - did I say Scummy Mummy?
Apologies.
Once again, I have blotted my copybook and offended you again (well, it is, after all, what I'm best at!).
Clearly I meant underage kids-having-kids teen pregnant schoolgirl chavettes. On the White Lightning. With their drugged up deadbeat dads cheating on them. Shoplifting from Poundland and fencing their spoils down Chav'llThieve Gardens for crack as they prostitute their younger sister to a mandem of chavscum in the public toilets.
Parents shouldn't be responsible for watching over their spawn, my best hat!
And people wonder why we have a "Jeremy Kyle" pool of undisciplined feral louts!
But that's just me - Evil!
* Twiddles twiddly 'tashe and cackles out a Machiavellian Mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha afore twirling his cape for good measure. Doffs top hat, polishes monocle, and goes off to search for a yummy mummy to dishevel about the dress and tie to the Greater Anglian railtracks *
