Gosh and there was me wondering why mothercare supplied such things to lock your cabinets and fridges and not forgetting baby gates to stop your children going into the kitchen in the first place.
So many member of society these days dont seem to know how to be responsible but the government likes a bunch of mindless idiots so i suppose its encouraging for them that they are getting what they want
Some people should just not be allowed to breed. Chav mum spots opportunity to possibly make some cash from a big manufacturer, probably. Someone needs to tell this girl to grow up and stop being stupid and learn what parental responsibility is. Oooh, I sound quite right wing.
If a child will eat cat shit from the litterbox, how the hell can you make a detergent tab look less appealing? Either lock them up or put them out of reach. Did this genius ever think that she could buy a box to store the detergent in that her child couldn't open?
Shall we just child proof everything to save us from having to hear the irresponsible parents moaning all the time?
A few ideas:-
Bubble wrap on anything with a 90 degree angle, laminate paper so they can't receive cuts, liquidise every food item to prevent choking, have a pin number to switch on the tv, ban all cleaning materials, no alcohol should be above 2% strength, remove all adult channels, close the internet (there's porn lurking in every corner dontcha know!), make women wear burkha's, put all medicine in a rubix cube type container (that way the kids will never get in them)!
Wow I'm really getting into this child proofing bollocks, by the time I'm finished the kids wouldn't even need their parents to keep them safe!:rolleyes:
No. What you do is repeal all health and safety legalisation that manufacturers have to do to protect consumers and pass on all the costs of keeping children safe onto parents so big business can wriggle out of their responsibilities and make more money - sorry, cut "red tape", whilst making it even more expensive to have children and prevent the poor from breeding by making them pay for more health and safety products and creating huge shame on any parent whose child has an accident by branding them an unfit parent.
On a more serious note, pretty obvious to anyone that you don't leave chemicals within the reach of children. Although I am disgusted at already underhand suggestions on this thread of preventing "chavs" from having children because they'll eat a liquitab. Take your hatred elsewhere.
I bet the same parent would be the first to complain if the manufacturer did as she wants - but doubled the price of the product to cover the increased packaging costs.
No. What you do is repeal all health and safety legalisation that manufacturers have to do to protect consumers and pass on all the costs of keeping children safe onto parents so big business can wriggle out of their responsibilities and make more money - sorry, cut "red tape", whilst making it even more expensive to have children and prevent the poor from breeding by making them pay for more health and safety products and creating huge shame on any parent whose child has an accident by branding them an unfit parent.
Although you weren't being serious, we've argubly gone way to far in the name of 'ealth and safety. Perhaps if we didn't insist on wrapping anything even remotely dangerous in cotton wool people would learn to take responsibility for themselves rather than brainlessly trusting someone else to keep them from the most minor of harms.
Yesterday I saw someone at work trip over a safety barrier that a cleaner had put in the middle of the floor because they were using a sodding hoover. That's a sign that we've gone wrong somewhere.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to have hamsters, let alone children.
Sad but true. The problem (IMO, anyway) is that with increasing H&S legislation and litigation, people have completely lost any form of common sense. Obviously, to you and me, you keep stuff that young kids aren't supposed to eat out of their way, but there is now a whole generation of frankly stupid people who think that all this stuff should be taken care of by SOMEONE ELSE, so that they don't have to worry about it.
Lorraine Kelly is what she is - basically a tabloid journalist looking for a story. Poor journalism for the BBC, though.
Saw this on the news this morning, and totally agree with the OP. It seems that some parents don't want to have to take any responsibility at all for their children. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
Just waiting for a parent to try and sue the manufacturers of these liquitabs, after their child eats one :rolleyes:
The boxes they come in really should be child proof and I hope manufacturers do something about this as I wouldn't want this to happen to any other little girl or boy”
Shannon Hutchison Patient's mother
It's unlikely to happen to any other little girl or boy. Most of them don't have feckless parents who leave dangerous chemicals where their children can reach them. :cool:
Yesterday I saw someone at work trip over a safety barrier that a cleaner had put in the middle of the floor because they were using a sodding hoover. That's a sign that we've gone wrong somewhere.
I have been saying for years we need "Warning - wet floor sign" signs
Are some parents really that useless that they cannot think for themselves to make their home safe for theit under twos?
Honestly, when did we as a nation become so dumb? I suppose it comes down to apathy, cant be bothered to get a few child locks or put the items in a cupobrad higher up because then it might mean reaching another 2 feet to get the tabs out.
Lazy parents will always put their children at risk,this is totally the fault of those lazy parents.
The manufacturer should consider making the packaging childproof as it wouldn't hurt to have that added precaution, but the responsibility lies solely on the parents to keep potentially dangerous things out of reach.
It's unlikely to happen to any other little girl or boy. Most of them don't have feckless parents who leave dangerous chemicals where their children can reach them. :cool:
I suppose as a parent I would think "would I eat this?" If the answer is no keep it out of reach of the kids.
Shannon Hutchison backed the hospital's safety campaign after her daughter Orla swallowed the contents of a liquitab at the age of seven months.
She said: "Orla was at my sister's house playing with my two-year-old nephew who managed to get hold of one of these liquitabs.
"He thought it was a sweetie because it was bright and like a jelly so he gave it to Orla who bit into it.
So not only was her 7 month old child left (by the sounds of it) unsupervised with a 2 year old :eek: but it still is not the fault of anyone other than the manufacturers???
The manufacturer should consider making the packaging childproof as it wouldn't hurt to have that added precaution, but the responsibility lies solely on the parents to keep potentially dangerous things out of reach.
It might be interesting if the manufacturers came up with a childproof pack but then sold a separate refill pack which you emptied into the childproof version. Other products are already sold in a similar way.
... OR ...
The parent could buy a child proof box and decant the tablets into that.
I suppose as a parent I would think "would I eat this?" If the answer is no keep it out of reach of the kids.
Exactly. Although I did extend that provision to include cat food - if it was good enough for the cat, it was OK for my daughter, and yes, she did have a go at it (it was Go-Cat, not fresh-caught mouse!).
It might be interesting if the manufacturers came up with a childproof pack but then sold a separate refill pack which you emptied into the childproof version. Other products are already sold in a similar way.
... OR ...
The parent could buy a child proof box and decant the tablets into that.
OR
The parent could just (a) put the box on a high shelf that the child couldn't reach or (b) put child locks on the cupboards (although that would probably involve too much effort, and they'd expect the Council to come in and do it for them).
The manufacturer should consider making the packaging childproof as it wouldn't hurt to have that added precaution, but the responsibility lies solely on the parents to keep potentially dangerous things out of reach.
1) It adds to cost
2) I used to have to open all my grandmother's childproof medicine bottles for her and pour the contents into old non-childproof bottles because she couldn't manage it with her old arthritic hands.
Comments
So many member of society these days dont seem to know how to be responsible but the government likes a bunch of mindless idiots so i suppose its encouraging for them that they are getting what they want
And what happens when some kid inevitably gets suffocated playing with the bubble wrap
Disguising the story as a 'warning to other parents' seems to suggest that this daft woman thinks they are all as unaware and irresponsible as she is.
On a more serious note, pretty obvious to anyone that you don't leave chemicals within the reach of children. Although I am disgusted at already underhand suggestions on this thread of preventing "chavs" from having children because they'll eat a liquitab. Take your hatred elsewhere.
Although you weren't being serious, we've argubly gone way to far in the name of 'ealth and safety. Perhaps if we didn't insist on wrapping anything even remotely dangerous in cotton wool people would learn to take responsibility for themselves rather than brainlessly trusting someone else to keep them from the most minor of harms.
Yesterday I saw someone at work trip over a safety barrier that a cleaner had put in the middle of the floor because they were using a sodding hoover. That's a sign that we've gone wrong somewhere.
Sad but true. The problem (IMO, anyway) is that with increasing H&S legislation and litigation, people have completely lost any form of common sense. Obviously, to you and me, you keep stuff that young kids aren't supposed to eat out of their way, but there is now a whole generation of frankly stupid people who think that all this stuff should be taken care of by SOMEONE ELSE, so that they don't have to worry about it.
Lorraine Kelly is what she is - basically a tabloid journalist looking for a story. Poor journalism for the BBC, though.
Just waiting for a parent to try and sue the manufacturers of these liquitabs, after their child eats one :rolleyes:
It's unlikely to happen to any other little girl or boy. Most of them don't have feckless parents who leave dangerous chemicals where their children can reach them. :cool:
I have been saying for years we need "Warning - wet floor sign" signs
Honestly, when did we as a nation become so dumb? I suppose it comes down to apathy, cant be bothered to get a few child locks or put the items in a cupobrad higher up because then it might mean reaching another 2 feet to get the tabs out.
Lazy parents will always put their children at risk,this is totally the fault of those lazy parents.
I suppose as a parent I would think "would I eat this?" If the answer is no keep it out of reach of the kids.
So not only was her 7 month old child left (by the sounds of it) unsupervised with a 2 year old :eek: but it still is not the fault of anyone other than the manufacturers???
Jesus!!
It might be interesting if the manufacturers came up with a childproof pack but then sold a separate refill pack which you emptied into the childproof version. Other products are already sold in a similar way.
... OR ...
The parent could buy a child proof box and decant the tablets into that.
Exactly. Although I did extend that provision to include cat food - if it was good enough for the cat, it was OK for my daughter, and yes, she did have a go at it (it was Go-Cat, not fresh-caught mouse!).
OR
The parent could just (a) put the box on a high shelf that the child couldn't reach or (b) put child locks on the cupboards (although that would probably involve too much effort, and they'd expect the Council to come in and do it for them).
Probably best not applying that logic to the vodka jelly though.
1) It adds to cost
2) I used to have to open all my grandmother's childproof medicine bottles for her and pour the contents into old non-childproof bottles because she couldn't manage it with her old arthritic hands.