DS Forums

 
 

This woman really is stupid


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Unread Yesterday, 13:32
biggle2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Out in t'sticks
Posts: 2,944

Who actually sends their child to play in designer gear? What an idiot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ner-shoes.html
biggle2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Unread Yesterday, 14:10
D_Mcd4
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,474
Attention seeker. She probably phoned the DM to tell them.
D_Mcd4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 14:21
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,034
She was the one that prompted my post about surnames as first names.

She just looks a thick chav. I didn't make a reference to it in my other post because I didn't want to be accused of misogyny for calling her a stupid woman. So thanks for doing that for me. She's a complete airhead.
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 14:43
bryemycaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,010
Unless this is all made up just for the DM. She is going to be bringing a lot of pain towards her daughter. She will end up either very self centered and uncaring about others. Or become very lonely as the other girls will be told by their mums they are not to play with her because they might get a bill for damaged clothes. Either way she is making her daughter a target which is something no parent should do.
bryemycaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 14:53
pie-eyed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,236
She is setting her child up for an abnormal and unhappy life. If she is to be preoccupied with looks and clothes she won't be able to play or join in with other child like activities. This will prevent her from learning about relationships with others. At school she won't be parading round "modelling" expensive clothes and shoes.

If she is "a model" as her ridiculous mother claims, that will only be for a short time. She is very unlikely to have a modelling career which goes on into adulthood so having that as the main element of her life at her age is risking turning her into a troubled young lady later on.
pie-eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 14:57
D_Mcd4
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,474
We're talking about someone who did this.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/05/woman-...tions-5988271/

So I doubt she's above using her daughter for some publicity.
D_Mcd4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:03
jaycee331
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,171
I love the ending of her note "or I'll take it higher".
Judge Rinder presumably
jaycee331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:05
wear thefoxhat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,783
I love the ending of her note "or I'll take it higher".
Judge Rinder presumably
Or even Jeremy Kyle.
wear thefoxhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:14
sutie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 25,455
I love the ending of her note "or I'll take it higher".
Judge Rinder presumably


Oh please let it be.

The sarcasm would hit unheard of heights.
sutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:17
Frankie_Little
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Summerseat
Posts: 7,311
We're talking about someone who did this.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/05/woman-...tions-5988271/

So I doubt she's above using her daughter for some publicity.
Oh is that the same woman? Probably the only reason she had a child, having failed to become famous in her own right with her daft dress designs.
Frankie_Little is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:23
Grafenwalder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,979
She certainly knows how to make enemies doesn't she! It's one sure way of getting written off any future party list! I feel sorry for the daughter with a silly mother like that as a role model.
Grafenwalder is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:25
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
Who actually sends their child to play in designer gear? What an idiot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ner-shoes.html
I would respond with an invoice for my time in supervising the playdate and hire of the facilities at £1000 per hour, add the cost of the sharpie her kid ruined and then deduct the price of the ridiculous shoes from the amount owing and finish with the same passive-aggressive hope you can pay before I take it higher.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:29
DavidT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North Devon
Posts: 12,642
Just curious. Legally does anyone know if she can pursue this?
DavidT is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 15:42
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
Just curious. Legally does anyone know if she can pursue this?
I'd say absolutely no chance at all.

You would probably have to prove that the other parent's negligence had caused significant material loss. That would involve demonstrating that there was a reasonable expectation that the other parent would keep the little snowflake's shoes in showroom condition, which there wasn't as the child was going on a "play date" (whatever the that is). The so-called "damage" could easily be defended as normal wear and tear to be expected on kid's clothing (heck, it wasn't a good day out if I didn't loose at least one button off my coat when I was that age). The scuffing to the soles of the shoes look like what happens to shoes when they are used to stand on the ground, like they are supposed to. The sharpie mark is less defendable, but kids draw on everything don't they and that can't be put down to any individual's negligence.

In short, and in my Mothers' own words, "don't go playing out in your best shoes or they'll be hell to pay".
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:00
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
The article is 100% centred on the the woman herself, and not a word about the person to whom she sent the e mail. It would have been interesting to get their reaction.

An indication of how far up her own arse Sarah Bryan is, can be seen by looking at her e mail. "Your child" and not the child's name.

I'd have told her to piss off.

How to win friends and influence people.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:05
Betty Middling
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 194
This is just newspaper bait.

The Daily Mail loves printing shit like this.
Betty Middling is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:07
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
The article is 100% centred on the the woman herself, and not a word about the person to whom she sent the e mail. It would have been interesting to get their reaction.
Other papers include a quote from the friend's Mum:

Originally Posted by BirminghamMail
But bemused Nicola, from Wakefield in Yorkshire, refuses to pay a penny towards the damage and yesterday branded Sarah’s bill “a pile of nonsense”.

She said: “I don’t know what her problem is to be honest.

“She must have more money than sense if shes going to pay that much for a pair of shoes for her daughter and then complain when they get ruined.

“Kids are kids, they get messy, they ruin things, that’s life.”
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:11
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
Other papers include a quote from the friend's Mum:
Thanks
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:25
thefairydandy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,847
Reading the article, she seems a bit damaged to be honest. One of those people who've had a rough life and then think that if they spend lots of money on superficial things it can fix things, and that she can protect herself and her daughter from being vulnerable again, whilst making mentally unsound car crash decisions like this.

Her daughter looks very sweet, but as aunt to two kids who are incredibly photogenic and have actually modeled and been scouted for it, I don't think she'd get anywhere without her mum's 'connections'.
thefairydandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:38
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
Reading the article, she seems a bit damaged to be honest. One of those people who've had a rough life and then think that if they spend lots of money on superficial things it can fix things, and that she can protect herself and her daughter from being vulnerable again, whilst making mentally unsound car crash decisions like this.

Her daughter looks very sweet, but as aunt to two kids who are incredibly photogenic and have actually modeled and been scouted for it, I don't think she'd get anywhere without her mum's 'connections'.
Harsh, but fair.

I get the feeling that the little girl's "modelling career" consists mainly/purely of being endlessly dressed in Mum's creations and then tweeted about, by Mum.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:41
Patti-Ann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,400
Why would a toddler have 60 pairs of shoes? Surely it will only be a matter of months till she outgrows them - will the mother fork out for another 60 to replace them
Patti-Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:50
TrollHunter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,703
Originally Posted by BirminghamMail
But bemused Nicola, from Wakefield in Yorkshire, refuses to pay a penny towards the damage and yesterday branded Sarah’s bill “a pile of nonsense”.

She said: “I don’t know what her problem is to be honest.

“She must have more money than sense if shes going to pay that much for a pair of shoes for her daughter and then complain when they get ruined.

“Kids are kids, they get messy, they ruin things, that’s life.”
Thank god that within this car crash of a story, a voice of reason can still be heard. Well done mum for not bending over to placate this obviously deranged parent.
TrollHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:51
TrollHunter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,703
Why would a toddler have 60 pairs of shoes?
Because attention-seeking
TrollHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:52
PoppySeed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,299
I'd say absolutely no chance at all.

You would probably have to prove that the other parent's negligence had caused significant material loss. That would involve demonstrating that there was a reasonable expectation that the other parent would keep the little snowflake's shoes in showroom condition, which there wasn't as the child was going on a "play date" (whatever the that is). The so-called "damage" could easily be defended as normal wear and tear to be expected on kid's clothing (heck, it wasn't a good day out if I didn't loose at least one button off my coat when I was that age). The scuffing to the soles of the shoes look like what happens to shoes when they are used to stand on the ground, like they are supposed to. The sharpie mark is less defendable, but kids draw on everything don't they and that can't be put down to any individual's negligence.

In short, and in my Mothers' own words, "don't go playing out in your best shoes or they'll be hell to pay".
It's a bit unfair calling her daughter 'the little snowflake', it's not her fault she's got an attention seeking idiot for a mother.
PoppySeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread Yesterday, 16:52
scott789s
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,017
Hairy bra ………eww
scott789s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28.