The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://msn.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/ news/top_story.html?in_review_id=513556
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
Page:
I thought Goatboy would like this one.
I was right! :-)
Nothing heartless about it, Goaty - just common sense. Well, to most of us, anyway.
I was right! :-)
Nothing heartless about it, Goaty - just common sense. Well, to most of us, anyway.
Ok, Mr Heartless takes the podium:
If you're stupid enough to give under-5s a hot drink, then you probably shouldn't be having kids anway.
Don't sue McDonalds for providing hot drinks that plenty of people seem able to get to grips with.
Sue other stupid parents, maybe that will restrict their funds preventing them from having more stupid children that will turn into yet more stupid adults.
The more I hear about people like this, the more I believe that the next world war will morons against themselves.
I'll close the bunker door, wait for a month and come out to a cleaner, more intelligent planet.
Stupid parents burn stupid kids, let's move on now and talk about something else.
If you're stupid enough to give under-5s a hot drink, then you probably shouldn't be having kids anway.
Don't sue McDonalds for providing hot drinks that plenty of people seem able to get to grips with.
Sue other stupid parents, maybe that will restrict their funds preventing them from having more stupid children that will turn into yet more stupid adults.
The more I hear about people like this, the more I believe that the next world war will morons against themselves.
I'll close the bunker door, wait for a month and come out to a cleaner, more intelligent planet.
Stupid parents burn stupid kids, let's move on now and talk about something else.
And this is why I don't go to McDonalds. All the freaks go there.
Typical... try and start a sensible conversation, and along comes Tricky...
Your Honour wrote:
> The Judge should just throw this case out of court.
Agreed - before it costs taxpayers any more money.
> The Judge should just throw this case out of court.
Agreed - before it costs taxpayers any more money.
The Judge should just throw this case out of court.
It's just plain stupid. A hot drink is a hot drink, simple as that.
How difficult can it be to figure out?
It's just plain stupid. A hot drink is a hot drink, simple as that.
How difficult can it be to figure out?
This is so typical of how things are changing now. Parents think they have no resposibility for what their children do nowadays, How the hell can it be MacDonalds fault if a child spills a hot drink over themselves.
The simple solution is you dont give kids hot drinks - not too difficult is it ? My kids ask for cups of tea from time to time and we give them half a cup and cool it down until it is lukewarm before they have it. I would never dream of giving them a hot drink when we were out somewhere.
Its madness - total madness, the solicitor who has brought this case should be barred for incompetence but he just wants to make a name for himself by standing up against a mega corporation. I'll bet he doesnt care about the kids - if he did he'd give the parents a good slapping for being so negligent with their kids. It's them who should be sue'd by MacDonalds.
Sorry - Rant over !!
The simple solution is you dont give kids hot drinks - not too difficult is it ? My kids ask for cups of tea from time to time and we give them half a cup and cool it down until it is lukewarm before they have it. I would never dream of giving them a hot drink when we were out somewhere.
Its madness - total madness, the solicitor who has brought this case should be barred for incompetence but he just wants to make a name for himself by standing up against a mega corporation. I'll bet he doesnt care about the kids - if he did he'd give the parents a good slapping for being so negligent with their kids. It's them who should be sue'd by MacDonalds.
Sorry - Rant over !!
http://msn.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/ news/top_story.html?in_review_id=513556
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
Page: