Originally posted by Hairy
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Crimewatch - Madeleine McCann
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Hairy View PostI think is getting to the strawman stage now. I don't carry around antivenom on holiday in the off chance my kid gets bitten, I don't have a surgeon on standby in case she trips over carrying a pyrex dish to the sunday dinner table and bleeds to death after cutting a main vein, I don't pack a parachute for her when she flies just in case the plane goes down.
But what I do do if someone tells me, as they did in Florida a few years back, that they've seen bull sharks, is not let her go into the water, if there is very strong medication in the house (which there has been of late), I ensure it's in a place she can't get to, my guns are locked in a safe and if I go out, I ensure people are there to look after her.
I genuinely do not know, why this is carrying on. Admitting she took a risk, admits it was risky behaviour. If you can't see culpability, on a large scale, then I genuinely will never get your point.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostMy point? I think they took an unacceptable risk, not just with the benefit of hindsight. But the point I am making here is that it is not black and white, but there are many shades of grey. I wonder what would have been deemed acceptable 50, 100 or 150 years ago. If it was different, were they wrong and are we right?Comment
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostIndeed - and there is something about being on holiday that causes you to let down your guard and do stuff you wouldn't do at home - it can feel like 'stepping back in time'. Getting into a taxi without seatbelts is a good example of a risk you'd probably take on holiday which you wouldn't at home.Comment
-
Originally posted by Hairy View PostBut what I do do if someone tells me, as they did in Florida a few years back, that they've seen bull sharks, is not let her go into the water, ...
although I'd keep an eye on her in the water, and shout if I saw fins circling herWork in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ hereComment
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostShe'd be fine - You're more likely to be killed by a bee than a shark.
although I'd keep an eye on her in the water, and shout if I saw fins circling herComment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostMy point? I think they took an unacceptable risk, not just with the benefit of hindsight. But the point I am making here is that it is not black and white, but there are many shades of grey. I wonder what would have been deemed acceptable 50, 100 or 150 years ago. If it was different, were they wrong and are we right?
Seriously here, if you and your wife were invited for a night out, 15 mins away, for dinner, dance and drinks and you couldn't get a sitter, how long would you think about it before you said no? Seriously.
My wife and I were like CIA operative when our first kid was born; one of us would sweep through a persons house identifying tulip my kid would hurt herself on, or break, and make mental notes to keep an eye on areas, and arn of damage. we knew what our kid was like, and knew what they'd do. Take your eyes off them and they're up to something, especially at Maddy's age. Kids, at that age, don't really understand cause and effect.
My simple point, is most parents would recognise it as a bad idea. They didn't, and it's this that concerns me.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostAs MS says, if the wrst happened I would blame myself. But would I be to blame?Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostMy point? I think they took an unacceptable risk, not just with the benefit of hindsight. But the point I am making here is that it is not black and white, but there are many shades of grey. I wonder what would have been deemed acceptable 50, 100 or 150 years ago. If it was different, were they wrong and are we right?
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostIndeed - and there is something about being on holiday that causes you to let down your guard and do stuff you wouldn't do at home - it can feel like 'stepping back in time'. Getting into a taxi without seatbelts is a good example of a risk you'd probably take on holiday which you wouldn't at home.
I woud have, pre child days - so not sure what that says about me.Practically perfect in every way....there's a time and (more importantly) a place for malarkey.
+5 Xeno Cool PointsComment
-
Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- What contractors can take from the Industria Umbrella Ltd case Yesterday 23:05
- Is ‘Open To Work’ on LinkedIn due an IR35 dropdown menu? Yesterday 05:57
- IR35: Control — updated for 2025-26 Sep 28 21:28
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 20:17
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 08:17
- ‘Subdued’ IT contractor jobs market took third tumble in a row in August Sep 25 08:07
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 24 05:05
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 23 21:05
- IR35: Mutuality Of Obligations — updated for 2025/26 Sep 23 05:22
- Only proactive IT contractors can survive recruitment firm closures Sep 22 07:32
Comment