guyser
-
Posts
14,284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by guyser
-
-
I can see it but my take is they wont. Anaheim takes them.I'll take the Hawks to win.
Was that a goal last night or not? The review process says it was the right call, no goal.
Finally Anaheim gets beat. But still Ducks in six
-
So I took you up on your 'homework' thing.The answers are already in this thread multiple times. I'm not falling for your troll bait. Do your own homework.
Went back over this whole thread.
And no, you offer nothing like you suggest you 'listed' ***, so the statement, "thanks for the non answer' stands.
Troll bait? Your the one in here claiming BS thanks, and no , one cannot discriminate (although many try) when dealing in a public business.
*** Hopefully not to claim you put forth the idiotic female gym idea thats been denounced.
-
Conclude?I assume then you conclude that Pamela Geller must also be a moron.
She is was has been a moron for quite some time.
This time she should be congratulated for getting what she wanted, an armed response.
-
I suppose we all would, but the facts suggest , and history, that this is a pipe dream.So you said, but I (and most of civil society) will tolerate isolated police misconduct, with the expectation that those involved will be punished when found guilty of committing crimes,
Apparently we may start seeing the pendulum come back. I wont hoild my breath.
Ah i see.versus widespread anarchy demonstrated by the rioters......frankly, I'd rather the "cultural problems" associated with the police, then the "cultural problems" associated with those that loot and burn down their own community.
So burning down a place you will never go see is really bad , versus having your rights violated by a cop which is ya know.....OK.
There is a disconnect there.
-
Perhaps? Perhaps? <facepalm>Exactly. Perhaps abortion doctors should "catch a bullet" too.
Two for one day !Many would consider terminating the life of an unborn 7 month old much worse than drawing a picture for private viewing.
"an unborn 7 month old " Whatever the hell that means.
-
Statement : Disgusting. It's the main reason I'm taking my wealth out of Canada. Even if it means I need to sneak it out because the NDP makes it illegal to move money around
She heard your question.
Here is her Answer:
-
I'm glad none of my assets are in Alberta. I'm going to retire sooner than I thought and leave Canada. Liquidate my assets and leave. The bolshiviks have taken Canada. It's over. The socialists have won. In the fall Mulcair will be PM and further destroy the country. I'm glad I'm well off and can leave this hole.
Maybe Peru or Belize. Not sure yet. We liked both places in our travels.
Wow, that is so telling .
I thought we had a crying smilie here.....
-
I see.
Another non answer. Yay!!
-
Such as..............?
-
So we are all into the 2nd round, a bit less exciting for sure, normally is anyway.
Have to say the first round wasnt as good as I thought it would be.
The Jets games were the best , Detroit and Tampa for me were yawners. (Bias alert, I find all Wings games boring)
Sens/Mtl were a ton of fun to watch, result was never in doubt but there ya go.
So...who you got?
Rangers...in 7
T Bay in 5 (and wow is that a surprise )
Anaheim in 5 or 6 I doubt if the Flames can win more than once.
Blackhawks in 6
I see the Ducks winning it all. They appear bigger , faster and stronger than anyone out there. Especially anyone from the East
-
Absolutely not.If the store puts up a sign which says "Any children under 12 who are not supervised will be seized and held against their will until parents are summoned and arrive" do you think that would make it legal to hold children against their will who have broken no law?
I am unsure what your angle is Argus.
Put you in handcuffs.If I see a kid on the street who appears under 12 and is not being supervised can I grab them and take them kicking and screaming back home and call their parents? What do you think police would do?
And?
-
And also this is pitting the rich against the left,
Yea cuz no leftie is rich of course.
-
Absolutely not.It sure would have mattered if the store did something that caused harm to the kid.
Nothing printed, posted, yelled, signed for by parents in the store could absolve the store causing harm to a child.
I dont think thats what you meant to write .
It would mean that those "by signing this form you absolve us of responsibility' forms you eget or abide by or written on the back of a ticket of admission allows the store etc to get off the hook.
Those arent worht the paper they are printed on.
-
A lot of them do, some figure it is there when 'we want to invoke it '.Apparently the store was ignoring their own policy too.
It doesnt in and of itself change anything though .
-
Somebody doesnt know the diff between the Canadian Military and the American one.
D'oh...
-
I dont think you nor anyone else can say 'obviously not displayed' and then reason it to the fact the kid had been there before.That policy was obviously not displayed where the public could see it then because the kid in question had been allowed to go into the store unattended a number of times before without incident.
Maybe the kid, and perhaps his folks too, ignored the sign or thought little of any action by the store.
-
Did Jian ever rape someone?I'd hazard a guess that the Military would never have permitted someone like Jian Ghomeshi to prowl the bases like he did the hallways and sets at CBC -
He certainly was a predator the likes the military should have seen but decided not to open their eyes.
Is the CBC or others in a place whereby it can be referred to by sexual assault is 'endemic' ? The Military has that problem .
In the late 90's it was a rape problem.
Seems as if this is a deflection , but why? Water is wet we know.- and it seems that not a month goes by that we don't read about sexual harassment/assaults from Doctors and Dentists - and those are only the ones that make it to the media. The military is a unique environment - and the whole area of sexual integration requires constant awareness, strong management - and where required, serious consequences for offenders.....but let's not be so naive as to think that harassment and assaults don't occur regularly in other professions. Be careful what rocks you turn over - you might get a big surprise.
But if not, ok, thanks for reminding us that society has creeps in it.
-
From the article....Did the Lego store have their policy towards kids on public display or not?
If not then I don't think anyone has much of a Lego to stand on in their defense in this case.
""…And as such we have a policy in place regarding unaccompanied minors. As this customer was under the age of 12 and alone, we followed our protocol and stand by our policy."
-
A parent is responsible in law whether they are there or not.Right. So you're just going to leave a child unattended in your store without feeling any sense of responsibility for them or their safety? This is pretty naive to think the people who work for the store would be so callous.
I have no idea what premise you are going for with the 'work for the store would be so callous' thought.
In fact dead on true.Taking that to be true, which it's not,
The law recognizes that "the capacities of children are infinitely various and accordingly treats them on an individual basis and, out of a public interest in their welfare and protection, in a more lenient manner than adults."6
The modified subjective standard is flexible enough to accommodate children who fall on a wide spectrum of age, intelligence and experience. The modified subjective standard has been found to apply to children beyond tender age but below full maturity. The standard will be higher depending on the facts of the case. If the child is older, more intelligent, and more experienced, the standard will be higher. These children are capable of negligence, but the law treats them in a more lenient manner than adults.
The particular activity of the child will also play a role in determining the standard of care. When a child engages in an adult activity, such as driving a car, dirt biking, or snowmobiling, that child will be judged by the purely objective standard that applies to adults. In McErlean, Justice Robins of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated,
[A]s a general rule in determining negligence, children are not required to conform to the standard of conduct which may reasonably be expected of adults. Their conduct is judged by the standard to be expected of children of like age, intelligence and experience. This is essentially a subjective test which recognizes that the capacities of children are infinitely various and accordingly treats them on an individual basis and, out of a public interest in their welfare and protection, in a more lenient manner than adults ...There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. Where a child engages in what may be classified as an adult activity, he or she will not be accorded special treatment, and no allowance will be made for his or her immaturity. In those circumstances, the minor will be held to the same standard of care as an adult engaged in the same activity.
Recognizing the distinct legal standards which apply to the subsets of children is key to effective early investigation of the case. If you are dealing with a tortfeasor or claimant of tender age, considerations of culpability in negligence or contributory negligence will not apply.
Come on cybercoma, you klnow the answer to this already. The store would call the cops, the cops may/could arrest the kid and start the process.do you really think the store wants to take the time to pursue a court case against a child (do you think the courts would even hold a 7 year old criminally responsible for shoplifting?)
If wilful damage was caused and the child is of sufficient age to know better (as per the court test) then the insurance company may seek a case, but thats up to them since the shop owner has agreed to bide by the policy wordings.
Do they 'want to' ? Who knows, in many cases no they probably dont.and besides do they really want to deal with the property damage or anything else that may occur even if they don't take it to court?
In some they probably do.
So...McDonalds can hire fewer cleaners since they dont want to deal with things kids do?It's more about the kids coming into the store and destroying the place, not putting things back where they belong and generally acting like unsupervised kids that the store shouldn't have to deal with.
Some inductries/stores are magnets for children, they target kids for sales (ok the parents pay). Legoland, is one, McDonalds is another , chucky cheese ...and so on.
They design, build , audit and ensure that they have done the best they can to mitigate any dangerous objects in their stores. In fact they spend inordinate amounts of money to achieve this.
The store knows it has to deal with unsupervised kids the moment they open the shop. Thats because plenty of parents dont do what they should, but also becuase the store wants to minimize any losses.
-
Atta boy pik , wonderful display of misogyny !What did people expect, it is a boys club and women want to force the government into letting serve on subs.
Come on....spell it out in big words, "Its the damn wimmenz fault for joinging up"
-
I believe this is the second time youve said this, it still isnt true.It's not like this kid was playing in a park and detained by the police. He was unsupervised in a store. The store doesn't want to be liable for something that happens to a kid when there's no parent there with them.
The store is held liable only for things that the store is found liable for. Parents or no parents. Doesnt matter.
Correct, they are a store for children. Mainly at least.They're also not a daycare centre.
Yes the certainly can be held criminally responsible. Each case is different since the Crown has to determine, but generally over the age of from 7-8 they can be.And perhaps most importantly, children under the age of 12 cannot be held criminally responsible if they damage the property, get into fights with other patrons, or steal product.
This argument does not hold water.
-
Doesnt that make her a soldier though? That was the question.Mechanic and driver apparently. Military service is regarded as an obligation of male royals but not females. I guess that was her idea.
She may not (in fact I think she didnt) have seen action or the front, but serving is serving and for that, all these Royals get a pass from me.
-
Didnt the Queen serve as one? She was a mechanic in the motorpool during WW2.Royals have never been play soldiers.
-
I am not so sure about that being the stores real concern.I think the clash of viewpoints here is that some people think the kid was detained because it's not safe for the child, but I don't think that's what this is about at all. I think it's about store liability. It's about the company not wanting its employees to be responsible for children left unattended. It's about the store protecting itself, not the child.
The store at all times, parents around or not, must keep a store that is as free from liability as it can. A defect or liability claim occcurs with or without parents.
The store is responsible for all shoppers, they cannot escape that.
2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs
in Travel, Leisure and Sports
Posted
And here is where we differ.Boring? I think maybe the US Can game was, and thats because the CDN's shut them down time and time again, no offence was generated to make it exciting, at least for them
Think it will be the Leafs? I hope so but doubts have crept in with all the teams in play for him. Maybe he wants a nice sunny climate to ply his trade, maybe Mrs Babs wants shorts and T's in February. That puts Canada out of the running.
The Hawks goaltending is stellar, they won with him before, no reason he cant do it again. He is afterall near tying the record for most playoff shutouts in Hawks history