rich guy posts his rich guy problem on twitter. twitter responds

[Liberal_in_LA]

'I booked six business seats with BA and they downgraded our nanny... it's just not right': Leading golfer Ian Poulter accused of being out of touch after Twitter rant 
Ian Poulter had booked six business class seats for his family and nanny

But when they arrived at airport, they found one had been downgraded

Golfer tweeted that his wife was forced to look after four children alone

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of 1.7million followers were unsympathetic

One, Joe Walker, wrote: 'Some mums aren't lucky enough to have nanny'















http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720519/I-booked-six-business-seats-BA-downgraded-nanny-just-not-right-Leading-golfer-Ian-Poulter-accused-touch-Twitter-rant.html

[valerief]

1. Rich guys are expected to have their own jets nowadays. nt

[Dirty Socialist]

42. In America, they can write off private jet purchases

[yeoman6987]

61. Problems are problems for everyone

I am sure this is quite annoying for this guy. We have no idea how he made his money. He certainly is keeping the airlines running. I don't know. I complain about things that others would probably shrug off. Human beings are all different.

[abakan]

84. Well, watching him play golf. I have a fairly good idea how he made his money.

Still does not excuse his whiny tweet.

[LTX]

109. "We have no idea how he made his money." Of course "we" do.

He plays golf. He clearly put in his time practicing to make the tour cut and win some majors, but he still plays golf. I'll repeat that - he plays golf for a living. I love golf, and I would give my eye teeth to make a living at it, even a meager one. But it's a goddamn game, one that 99.9999999999% percent of the people who play the game play as recreation to take their minds off the drudgery of an actual fucking job. He earned himself no points for acting like a juvenile, spoiled brat.

[DiverDave]

172. Nailed it, just nailed it.

Yours is the best reply of this whole thread.

[laundry_queen]

156. *headdesk* nt

[Logical]

2. What an asshole. People like him are so fucking clueless that they don't even get why people...

are making fun of them.

[liberal N proud]

3. Notice he made sure the nanny sat in steerage

He could have let the many take the business class and help his helpless wife. I am sure he didn't lift a hand to help.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. he wasnt on the flight

[n2doc]

7. Yep.

Fake Tiger Woods- "Flying commercial is for losers!"

[delete_bush]

119. You appear to be "sure" of a lot of

things about someone you don't even know.

Oh, and by the way, here's something I'M sure about, he wasn't even on the flight.

[tblue37]

129. Wife + nanny + 4 kids = six seats. He was not one of the six on the flight. nt

[oberliner]

4. "Children are being killed in Gaza"

That's quite a response.

[Nye Bevan]

6. And I'm sure starving families in Africa would be very sympathetic to DU posts such as this one.

Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018650389

And this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018463015

Everything is relative.

[d_b]

39. like third world skeptic

[mercuryblues]

8. if his wife

couldn't handle 4 kids by herself for a few hours, maybe she shouldn't have had 4 kids.

[ecstatic]

11. I'd have 4 kids if and only if I was wealthy with a staff

of nannies and assistants. I know what needs to be done but there's no way I'd be able to do it by myself.

[freshwest]

70. So would I; doesn't necessarily mean I'd've birthed them. I could've adopted some.

[littlemissmartypants]

131. I was the volunteer nanny for five today.

While the mothers were cooking and getting baths and toothbrushes ready. I read the same book five times. Got food/liquids out, clothes, pacifiers, diapers...the list goes on and it doesn't stop.They are little people who need us.

If I had no help and had four to take care of all alone, one of us would be dead. That's something my grandmother used to say.
I really appreciated her sentiment today. She had three children.

But I did have fun. They love me. I'm the "best godmother ever" one of them told me today. I'm only god mom to one but they all want me.
It's hard.

Maybe mister golfer man needs to STFU and get a clue like... never mind they might be in the Full Quiver crowd. I'll just stop there.

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

[oldhippie]

15. Nobody should have four kids

It's totally irresponsible.

[PasadenaTrudy]

19. +1

Just another entitled breeder...

[irisblue]

24. I am the oldest of 5, 4 living

I have no idea how my mom did it, and why she did not strangle one brother in his crib....tis a miracle he is alive today.
but 4 kids on a plane....some small, tiny, very small sympathy for the breeder of the 'issue'

[kdmorris]

76. Wow... love when the names start flying

about someone's pet reason that they are better than the rest of us.

I'm not a "breeder". I'm not a horse and I find that disgusting and insulting to be compared to one. Like someone said down thread... we are all pro-CHOICE... until we are not. Until someone makes different choices than you.

I do have 5 children - 3 in their 20s and 2 14 month olds.

[cui bono]

102. Do you not think that overpopulation is a real issue?

Or have you not heard that it might be?

People have a right to be concerned with that since it threatens our livelihood. Just as we are concerned with other issues that are detrimental to the planet or our livelihood.

Not saying that the use of "breeder" is not disrespectful, but there is good reason to have strong feelings about families who birth so many children. The earth simply cannot sustain it.

[kdmorris]

114. You have every right to your opinion and your concern

I have strong feelings about a lot of things (mainly having to do with religion and its effect on America, politics and the world), but I try not to shove it down everyone's throat or call them names.I don't go around calling them disrespectful names and I expect the same courtesy from others.

You sure don't win friends and influence people that way. In fact, it just kind of pisses off your ALLIES.

[cui bono]

116. I think you are talking to the wrong person now.

I didn't call you or anyone else any names.

I did ask you a question that you avoided. Are you aware that overpopulation is a problem? Perhaps you aren't, I don't know, that's why I ask. I realize it may be difficult for you to have this discussion considering you have five kids, 2 of whom are still toddlers. And that's why I'm asking if you are aware of it, perhaps you are not. I don't know.

[kdmorris]

121. I didn't say that you did call anyone names

The poster that I responded to most certainly did. You felt the need to explain to me that it's OK for her/him to have strongly held beliefs, which is what I responded to.

I didn't avoid the question... I just stated that feeling strongly about something does not give on the right to act disrespectful (talking about the poster I originally posted to, not you.)

And I will stand by that... being aware that population is a problem (I am not an idiot, so yes, I'm aware that overpopulation is an issue, but thanks for acting like I am) is no excuse whatsover to call people names. Being aware that religion causes massive issues across the globe having to do with all kinds of human rights abuse also does not give me the right to call people names, either... this is a cause that I feel pretty strongly about. I do not consider myself to be a superior being because I do not practice a religion.

And I find it tiring (and offensive) that people who are aware (as am I) that population is an issue feel that they are superior for not having children and call those of us who do have children "breeders", as if we are common cattle.

I don't care what reason you give for it or how you phrase it. Calling people names (as the poster I responded to did, NOT YOU) is not an acceptable response. And you popping over to give me a "good reason" why he/she feels so strongly that they need to call people names didn't really help much.

"I realize it may be difficult for you to have this discussion considering you have five kids, 2 of whom are still toddlers." Seriously, you don't see this as condescending at all, huh?

Have a great night. I'm done with this. I'm not sure what game you are playing or why you felt the need to defend the poster, but I don't feel like playing this particular game anymore.

[Tsiyu]

125. DU has insufferable snobs in its midst

whose parents I sometimes wish would have done what their offspring now demand:

had NO KIDS.

Just think, if the ignorant assholes here who use the pejorative "breeder" had never been born, I know I'd feel a lot better about things.

Only kidding.

Kinda.

Mother of many here.

[kdmorris]

148. +1

[cui bono]

127. You think I'm acting like you are an idiot for asking if you are aware that overpopulation

a problem. If you know that then why did you have 2 more kids?

I mentioned that it maybe be difficult for you to discuss it not out of condescension but out of understanding. That was the reason I thought you may not be aware of the issue. The entire tone of your post to me is rude and defensive. Understandable now since you say that only idiots don't know that overpopulation is an issue.

I don't know why you had 2 more kids but I would be curious to know since you now say only idiots don't know that overpopulation is a problem yet you chose to have more kids after you already had grown children.

I'm not playing any games. I thought since you had had more kids recently that you may not have been aware of the issue of overpopulation and that if you became aware you might think about not having more kids or spread the word, or something. But now I see that you are aware and for some reason had more kids anyway. And if you think that sounds condescending then tough shit. I have relatives who have to grow up in this overpopulated world.

You were the one who volunteered your offspring info on a public message board that deals with political issues. If you don't want to be questioned about it or responded to about it then don't publish the info. But especially don't go off being rude when someone asks you a perfectly normal question.

[kdmorris]

147. It is none of your business why or how my children came to be

that was my original point. I didn't say anything to you. I took exception with a word that someone used because it's about as offensive to me as being called a n***er is to an African American or a f***ot is to a homosexual.

YOU are the one that decided to jump in here and YES you are playing games. You want to maintain your innocence by saying that you are not calling anyone names yet you are responding to me as if I should be ashamed of my children somehow. As if it is somehow your business...

I didn't plan to have two more kids, but that's what happened. You do know that almost 100 percent of parents of twins do not plan to have twins, don't you? Maybe you weren't aware or something... maybe you just think that everyone is trying to have twins, I don't know.

And they are amazing now that they are here. What would you have me do with them? Shoot them at dawn because you and your ilk think they shouldn't have been born? Give them up for adoption because I've had my share? Hide them in the back room so that no one knows my sin... so that you and others won't judge me?

Life is much more complex than your world view allows.

[cui bono]

161. You don't know what my world view is.

I asked a simple question. I didn't know the answer/reason so I asked you. Had I been jumping on you as you feel I was I wouldn't have asked you anything, I would have just made statements to you. Discussing something on a message board is normal behavior. If you didn't want to discuss it you shouldn't have posted your personal information. If it's none of my business then keep it to yourself.

You are very angry about my question and have attributed a lot of judgment to it. I didn't mean to anger you, but again, you are the one who brought up how many children you have and their ages on a public message board in response to someone who referenced people having a lot of kids or something of that nature. If you don't want to discuss it then don't bring it up. But don't go attributing made up "emotions" (not the right word but I can't think of the right one now) to my questions. You are very angry and I don't think my questions warrant that response.

[kdmorris]

165. LOL I'm not angry about your question

And I asked YOU a simple question. What would make you happy in regards to my family as it now stands, since you feel that you have the right to judge me? What do you think it the right choice for me to make in regards to my children?

LOL "if it's none of my business, keep it to yourself"... We can discuss it all you want, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with you. But you know as well as I do that stating a fact (I have 5 children) does not mean that I'm inviting you into my bedroom to discuss the how and why and wherefore and what of how those children came to be.

You didn't ask me a simple question. You asked me a question and then went on to tell me why the poster that I responded to needed a little understanding for using such an heinous term.

Not saying that the use of "breeder" is not disrespectful, but there is good reason to have strong feelings about families who birth so many children.

I responded to that "you have ever right to your opinion and concern" and told you that strong feelings does not give you (the general you... as in the person I originally responded to) the right to call people names.

I am not angry with you but you are being disingenuous in acting like you an in innocent victim here.

And if the poster that I responded to didn't want people to judge him or her, I would think that they would limit their use of the word "breeder" when referring to people who have children on a public message board. I can't believe you are equating the use of this term to " in response to someone who referenced people having a lot of kids or something of that nature." You can't whitewash the word away. It's right there.

So again, answer my question. When I found out that I was pregnant with twins, was the appropriate response, from your perspective as a "concerned person", to get an abortion as soon as I found out? If not, what are you saying I should have done, since you feel you have the right to judge me for them being here. Because I have a real moral problem with forced abortion... I'm pro-choice... in that everyone gets to choose for THEMSELVES what their reproductive choices are. And if I can afford to provide for them, why would I abort them? Because people like you are "concerned" about population growth?

Until birth control is available to all and child marriages are stopped so that girls are educated and not pawned off at 12 years old to get married (among a host of other issues), there will be no population control. And I refuse have an abortion just to prove my worth to the likes of you.

Please answer the question (what do you think I should have done) or don't bother to reply.

[cui bono]

166. Okay, you are completely misconstruing what I said.

I understand that the term "breeder" set you off, but I didn't excuse it.

I would answer your question, but you are so angry and have already decided that I am judging you I don't feel that any discourse with you at this time would be productive.

You can read more about my views on this elsewhere in this thread. Suffice it to say there are no easy answers but it's an issue that really needs to have a discussion because it's very serious.

[Tsiyu]

167. What I say to people who ask

"Don't you care about overpopulation?"

"Why, yes. Yes I do I care very much about the overpopulation of rude people."

As they stammer and search for a response, I then add:

"If you'd just go on and off yourself right now, that will reduce the overpopulation by one. Small steps, oh rude one."

[cui bono]

168. Sometimes it's better to come up with a mature response though. n/t

[Tsiyu]

169. Sometimes it's better not to say rude things to people

who already have children.

The birthrate is falling fast in the US.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/us-birthrate-plummets-to-record-low/?page=all

If some of the Holy Rude Ones want to be taken care of in their old age, via kids paying into the system, they'd better hope that changes in the US.

But telling a parent of children that the world doesn't need their kids - which is essentially what you're doing - is probably the most immature, insufferably rude thing you can do.

[cui bono]

171. This coming from someone who basically told me to go kill myself. That's rich.

You are also attributing things to my question that I never said. You have no idea how I might have responded to the answer to my initial question or the second one either.

No one said this is an easy topic to discuss, but discuss it we must. It's a serious issue. And unfortunately there's no getting around the fact that a lot of the people that would be discussing it have children. So what then, we just ignore it? As I told that poster, they brought their family stats into the discussion when they posted them on an internet message board. They put them into the discussion.

Now would you like to have a discussion or... oh nevermind, you already opened with telling me to go kill myself. I know the answer to what I was just about to ask you.

[Tsiyu]

173. We have a plummeting birth rate

a plummeting birth rate


Did you get that?

The person brought up family size because of others' rude comments about "breeders" and the irresponsibility of having children.

And then you piled on with your "But don't you care about overpopulation?"

As if this parent can go "Well, shit. Now that you mention it, the world doesn't need my kids. What to do!"

What is the point of such a question? People were probably concerned about overpopulation back when you were born, yet here you are.

And I made a joke, which was not directed at you and which was a suggestion in any case, not an order. Bitching about how my kids aren't needed by the world when my kids were right there at times was just rude and cruel.

There are nations that need to curb their birth rates. I suggest you learn their lanquages and pester them with your overpopulation sermons.

In the US, we are having the opposite phenomenon.

[tkmorris]

184. Depends on who you are responding to I find

There are times when delivering your favorite sermon is just plain fucking rude.

[Dorian Gray]

237. Nah

the one above is quite good.

[kdmorris]

176. Actually, that is exactly what you did

Not saying that the use of "breeder" is not disrespectful, but there is good reason to have strong feelings about families who birth so many children. The earth simply cannot sustain it.

ex·cuse
: to forgive someone for making a mistake, doing something wrong, etc.,

You excused them for using that term (that "set me off&quot because "there is good reason to have strong feelings".

That is what I responded to. I don't care how strong your feelings are. Calling people names is INEXCUSABLE.

I don't feel like this has been productive AT ALL, mostly because you somehow believe that me stating that I have 5 children excuses all of your attempts to forcible discuss this.

What you are actually typing and what you think you are typing bear no resemblance to each other. As I stated, I'm not angry at you, but I'm also not at all surprised that you refuse to answer.

You stated further down that you think everyone should be responsible for their own choices. Yet somehow, you decided to force me to discuss this because I stated that I had 5 children.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, my ex-husband... "sorry I hit you, honey, but it's your own fault for doing x".

[cui bono]

214. I apologize for having angered and offended you. That was not my intention.

I tried to explain that but you don't believe me. When you came at me angrily I got a bit defensive as well and replied rather than just apologize and let it go. I'm sorry about that.

I honestly was not excusing the name calling, I'm sorry my wording didn't convey that to you. Allowing for strong feelings about an issue does not allow for name calling, though, so I think you are reading more into that than is there, or at the very least not allowing for the possibility that the sentence may not have been constructed in the best way.

I stupidly did not foresee that my initial post would anger you so. I'm sorry about that and I'm sorry if it was insensitive. Had I had the intention of angering you or judging you I would have come right out and done so in a straightforward manner.

I always wonder about things and like to think about the whats and whys and this was bad timing as far as the place in thread and being as you are in a situation that you cannot change and of course you love your children dearly, as you should. That really is why I said this might be hard or something to that effect though, not to be condescending, as you took it, but because I knew it would be. Again, had I realized it would anger you so I wouldn't have said anything as my intention was not to anger you. Again, stupid on my part I guess.

This has all made me wonder if this is a conversation that can ever be had at all. Most adults do have children, so how do we do it if it will be offensive to those with children? I'm actually going to start an OP about it because it is very interesting to me to think about whether it is possible and how it would be possible. I mention it here so you don't come across it and think it is me going off and making an OP about you, directed at you or anything of that nature. It is just to explore exactly that, if it is possible for people to have this conversation at all, because this thread has made me wonder about that.

Again, I'm sorry what I said angered you. Please accept my apologies.

[kdmorris]

220. I accept your apology

And I'm sorry I got angry at you when I was mainly angry at the poster that used "breeder". Starting this sort of conversation at the point where someone has called another a "breeder" probably isn't the way to start. But it's OK. I'm far from perfect and have made mistakes.

I would not have thought that you made the OP about me. In fact, I was going to suggest that this conversation might have been more productive if it had started from a position of cooperation instead of in a subthread that someone started by using a pejorative.

I might even participate in the your thread, if you are willing to have those of us that have children participate. My experience with this sort of discussion in the past led me to believe that I'm not really welcome to those discussions since I'm "part of the problem". I'll try to toss that chip off and be more productive in that thread, if I have time to participate.

[cui bono]

221. Thank you.

Would love to have you participate.

[DonCoquixote]

182. One problem with overpopulation issues

It is easy for the white middle class to avoid havign kids, but are they going to tell this to the religious, who, quite rightfully, realize they can outbreed their rvials into oblivion. Does not matter wteher it is Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, or even Muslims, religious cultures will keep encouraging the big families in the hopes of breeding soliders to overcome all others, and if you question their large families, you will be accused of being a bigot.

[Punkingal]

199. This is utterly ridiculous...

You need to stop your attacks. Another poster's life choices are none of your business. And there was a time when people didn't behave this way on DU. I don't have a high post count, but I have been here for a long time, used to be a moderator and it is depressing to see things like this. Nor do I usually jump in the middle of a discussion like this, but come on. I am so fed up with incivility.

[Dorian Gray]

235. Because it's not your place

to judge a fellow poster here for choosing to have a family with however many children she/he does or doesn't want.

Geez, I have one child. That would seem to be appropriate to you, but, truly, it's none of your business how many children any of us choose to have. Whether it's zero or 10.

[demwing]

151. "good reason to have strong feelings about families who birth so many children"

Fine. Strong feelings are not a problem.

What is your solution to this issue, over which you feel so strongly?

[cui bono]

162. See my response to your other post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5364800

[antiquie]

152. I love when it's the good moms, like you,

who have kids.

[demwing]

85. Please define "breeder"

I'd like to know under what definition the term is used in the pejorative.

2 kids? 4?

Any kids, no matter the number?

[kdmorris]

115. As I've heard it used (and I can't speak for the poster)

it means ANY children. The right and proper thing to do is to never bring a child into this world, because there are too many people in this world. At least, that's what you are supposed to do if you are a good person...

[cui bono]

164. I've never known it to be meant as a judgmental word, simply one to describe hetero females.

At least that's how I learned about it back in the 90's I think it was. Probably due to the band The Breeders.

I do agree that the poster above seemed to use it in a more judgmental manner, but like I said, that's never been my understanding of its usage.

I just did a search on Urban Dictionary does indicate that even when used with the definition I thought it had it is described as derogatory. And there are several definitions that say it means a bad parent or one who has many children. Not at all how it was used when I first heard it.

[jmowreader]

132. Most of the CF folks I know use "breeder" for bad parents

Easy example: Michelle and Barack Obama are parents. Sarah and Todd Palin are breeders.

[demwing]

154. CF = "Child Free" correct?

Thanks for the "breeder" definition. I'll agree that folks who have kids and don't raise them are not responsible adults, and the term "parent" is an exaggeration, but I still think the term "breeder" is highly offensive, and is used to dehumanizes people with whom we disagree.

Liberals/Progressives shouldn't dehumanize anyone. End of story.

[cui bono]

163. I've always heard it used as a term for hetero females.

Never heard of it used in any way to mean anyone who has a certain number of children.

[Travis_0004]

28. DU is pro choice. Until it isnt.

[cui bono]

92. There's a huge difference between stating a position and legislating one.

There's also a huge difference wanting to curb overpopulation, which is a threat to humanity's very existence, and wanting to legislate what a woman can do with her own body because you believe some fictitious man in the sky thinks it's a sin and you think that everyone should be forced to live by your unsubstantiated religious beliefs.

[demwing]

150. Do you believe parents should make their own decisions

as to how often they reproduce?

[treestar]

157. That is a good question

An uncomfortable one to ask.

At some point overpopulation could become serious enough that society decides to take that decision away from individuals.

Societies that want more people take steps to encourge that.

So one that felt overcrowded might adopt other policies.

[cui bono]

160. I believe they should make their own responsible decisions.

There is no good answer to the problem we face with overpopulation. Obviously limiting the amount of children one may produce has horrible consequences as evidenced by China's example. But what do we do when the earth simply cannot sustain the population growth?

At some point someone has to take a stand. And then we come to the problem that if it is up to the individual to make that choice, the most educated and well off are the ones who will stop procreating while the uneducated and poor will continue to have many children who then, statistically, will remain in the same condition and the cycle continues. What would the outcome of the world be then?

So is some sort of regulation necessary or advisable? Is it feasible to have any regulation that doesn't lead to the problems China has? Will there always be a way for the rich to bypass or break said regulation by paying a fine, thereby making yet another situation of the affluent being able to do whatever they want?

I don't have the answers but I think it needs to be discussed openly. We can't not say anything for fear of offending someone who chose to have many children just because they agree with us on other issues.

[IrishEyes]

46. My grandparents had 6 kids.

They raised them while both working full-time jobs. They all lived in a small house with one bathroom.

[yeoman6987]

63. Oh brother

You are on ignore. What a disgusting post.

[freshwest]

72. What is they were all adopted kids?

[cui bono]

105. That would be fantastic!

[oldhippie]

113. I would feel differently about that. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

100. I agree.

it is unhealthy to the ecosystem.

[SunSeeker]

16. Exactly.

That's why I only had one, not a litter.

I bet those four are a bunch of spoiled brats too. Nanny was probably psyched she got shunned to steerage.

[littlemissmartypants]

133. LOL. nt

[SunSeeker]

188. Congratulations on your 6. One is all I can handle.

I was not "patting myself on the back." I was just noting that I know my limits. I am in awe of people who do well with 2, let alone 6, without a nanny. I meant no disrespect to your kid(s). "Litter" was a reference to a large birth number, not a suggestion that your kids or anyone else's are subhuman.

Lighten up, Frances.

[delete_bush]

191. Why do you "bet those four are a

bunch of spoiled brats"? Who are you to judge? What's your REAL problem with this family...that they're far more financially successful than yours?

[SunSeeker]

194. I'm guessing they're brats because he complained about his wife having to deal with them alone.

If they were quiet little angels, I imagine all he would have complained about was having paid too much for his nanny's seat. Sounds like his wife complained about what an awful time she had trying to deal with the 4 kids alone, which prompted him to shoot out his tone - deaf complaint about his wife having "no help for 10 hours with 4 kids." I am not jealous of his wealth. Good grief.

Look, I couldn't handle 4 kids, that's why I didn't have 4 kids. I only had 1 because I didn't want to have a nanny raise my kids, or be like his wife Katie and be overwhelmed when left alone with them.

Don’t get me wrong, I don't think no one should have a large family. I just think if you're going to have a large family, you should be able to handle the kids.

[delete_bush]

195. He complained that British Airways had

downgraded the ticket of the nanny from business class. He planned for the nanny to help with his wife in taking care of their 4 children.

Please explain how you extrapolate from this that his wife was complaining about "what an awful time she had trying to deal with the 4 kids alone". There is no evidence of this, you made it up from whole cloth.

You have an agenda, an emotional response to this that is INDEFENSIBLE and not based on fact. It's either jealousy, envy, hatred of those wealthier than you...something is getting your goat beyond the facts.

I find this mindless response not worthy of one claiming to be a liberal et al. You attack a woman with 4 kids without any facts, except that she happens to be wealthy. Pathetic.

[SunSeeker]

197. No, you are ignoring the tweet that so many found so offensive.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why you are, and why you have embarked on this campaign of insults at your fellow DUers.

I know from life experience that a spouse gets madder at a merchant if the other spouse gave him an earful about it. Not only did the merchant rip him off, but the merchant hurt his spouse. That anger would lead you to lash out and say stuff you wouldn't otherwise say if all that happened was you were overcharged.

I am not angry, I just provided a light-hearted response to a silly tweet. You are the one angrily insulting DUers in your long-winded rants over nothing.

[freshwest]

69. How many times has he and wifey said this about the poors?

[hfojvt]

82. I am just wondering

where was the father of those kids?

The wife had to look after 4 children alone, because the nanny wasn't there

and father apparently felt like "it's women's work"

it's too bad the useless male slug didn't take the downgraded seat so his wife could at least have some help.

[delete_bush]

87. Congratulations! Of all the posts so far,

yours is in 1st place!

[tammywammy]

90. The father wasn't on the flight. n/t

[dionysus]

135. uh, cause he was at the tournament, playing? yeah, he was a douche with his comments tho....

[demwing]

155. "useless male slug"

It should come as no surprise that your favorite group is the HoF.

[brewens]

9. A lot of wealthy people would kill themselves if they were taken down and had to do a nanny's job.

That's why they wage class warfare as visciously as they do. To them it would be a disgrace to have to do hard honest work and get by on what most of us consider good wages.

We fight back and want things to be a little more fair and they accuse us of class warfare.

[hifiguy]

99. That would result in a significant net improvement to society.

[littlemissmartypants]

134. LOLZ. nt

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

12. On the bright side, the nanny had a ten hour break.

[SunSeeker]

18. Yup. She's left alone with those four kids all the time. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

123. yes, she raises the kids

[packman]

20. That's what I was thinking

10 hrs. with four rich brats while parents snooze - wouldn't surprise me she arranged it to get some relief.

[BuelahWitch]

40. Bet Mum was equipped with plenty of Benadryl

Or maybe even whisky. "Here honey, have another swig, er, drink of your new brown juice! I don't care if it burns going down your throat, you need to drink it to the last drop!"

[delete_bush]

78. Thinking?

If you're such a 'thinker', please explain the following... "four rich brats while parents snooze".

Let me help. First of all, the "parents" were not on board, this is clearly stated in the article.

Now please explain how the children are all "brats".

[smokey nj]

106. Their mother WAS on board.

[delete_bush]

110. I'm well aware of this,

as evidenced by several of my other posts. As only one parent was on the flight, it is correct to state that the "parents" were not on board. An awkward construction, but done intentionally.

[Union Scribe]

38. Great point! nt

[Baitball Blogger]

53. Oh, that was good.

[Hekate]

80. Best observation yet!

"You deserve a break today."

[Iggo]

89. Hadn't thought of that.

SCORE!!!

[littlemissmartypants]

136. Yep. nt

[whistler162]

180. Probably won the rock, paper,

scissors, spock!

Guess he should have stayed the assistant public course pro and golf shop manager who paid for his green fees on the course he worked at. Not to mention his early life of easy and luxury. What with his disabled father and store manager mother. Better the nanny not work as a nanny, maybe she could find a better paying job that didn't involve travel, like working at Burger King!

[avebury]

14. Perhaps his wife should

have sat in steerage and allowed the nanny to sit in business class with the kids.

I will say though, if he paid for 6 tickets and one got downgraded, I hope the airline refunded the difference in ticket price for the downgraded ticket.

Edit to add: Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Atlantic Airlines, if I remember correctly, had his children ride with the "common people." He did not want his kids growing up assuming that they were always going to get everything handed to them on a silver platter. They seem to have turned out ok.

[MatthewStLouis]

170. That's what I was thinking! The wife can take her smart phone and go sit in the back.

The kids likely wouldn't miss her anyway.

[delete_bush]

193. Why would anyone wish to

sit in steerage? Given the option?

[avebury]

240. Her choice

Ride in steerage or have to look after her own kids. I guess it depends upon how much she wants to be the one to take care of the kids on a long flight. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. But if she makes the nanny fly steerage then they have no right to bitch about her having to take care of her own kids.

[Dorian Gray]

238. I agree with one thing

how does one "Downgrade" a ticket? Is that a thing? did they pay for the tickets? They deserve a refund and I can see being pissed about it. But, yeah, if using twitter to complain maybe don't mention the "nanny"

[whereisjustice]

17. Under the rules of class warfare, Mr. Poulter is charging that a war crime has been committed.

[zonkers]

21. He is not out of touch. A post like this is subconsciously deliberate.

[Liberal_in_LA]

124. good point

[LisaL]

22. That's a lot of children.

[yeoman6987]

64. I think it is great

He can pay for them is 100 percent ok in my book. It is the ones who can't afford kids is the problem.

[littlemissmartypants]

137. What about "accidents" or children of rape and incest? eom

[McCamy Taylor]

23. He should have taken the cheap seat, let the nanny stay with wife and kids.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. exactly. n/t

[delete_bush]

49. Why "exactly"?

Comprehension problem? He wasn't even on the flight.

[lumberjack_jeff]

153. Clearly my comprehension skills are no match...

... for your rudeness capacity.

Yes, I didn't initially catch from his tweets that he wasn't on the flight.

Thus a different solution; mom should have taken the peaceful cheap seat back in steerage and avoided all that maternal unpleasantess.

[delete_bush]

183. An apples/oranges comparison

If you detect 'rudeness', perhaps it's that by the time you posted I was extremely disappointed in the lack of (1) comprehension (2) intellectual curiosity (3) ability to argue a position (4) use of stereotypes (5) knee-jerk reactions (6) emotional responses (7) pretense of knowing how someone completely unknown thinks (7) jealousy (8) envy (9) misogyny (10) and more exhibited by numerous posters on this thread. <P>These are traits I usually ascribe to Cons. <P>I'm more than happy to discuss this with you in a civil manner, should you choose to do so. I challenge you to read the entire thread and come to any other conclusion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. a) I'm not "the entire thread". Don't project your inferences of it onto one poster.

b) Yes, my ONE EFFING WORD on the subject was predicated on a shared misread of the article. That one word was an apparently irresistible reason to go all "Dr. House" on me.

The rest of the topic has been thoroughly explored, but "misognyny?" Bullshit.

[delete_bush]

222. Does this mean you agree with 9 of the 10?

Misogyny might be a stretch, but I find use of the term "breeder" to be a step or two in that direction.

I understand that one can misread an article but even after confronted with this, those who did so merely switched their hostility from the father to others. I feel that one can comment on whether or not the tweet was out of line without going after the mother, the kids, the wealthy, etc. Oh, and for some reason I didn't find anyone going after the big, insensitive corporations.

Just an observation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

227. I think the phenomenon of going after the father was a manifestation of the opposite of misogyny.

- myself included.

The underlying and unexamined presumption was that if one of the two superfluous people (understood to be) in the first class cabin was going to steerage, it should be dad - not mom.

But yeah, the "breeder" rhetoric pisses me off too, and it should go without saying that if you pay for a ticket you are entitled to the seat.

[delete_bush]

231. Based on the number of folks

I've pizzed off, I'd say you'd be the least likely to reject a beer from me. Cheers!

[Travis_0004]

32. He wasnt on the flight

[mnhtnbb]

26. I'm surprised with 4 kids in business class that another business customer

didn't offer to change seats with the nanny!

[erpowers]

27. Are You Kidding Me?

Yes, this guy is out of touch. His wife having to seat alone with the couples four kids is not a problem or a hardship. Even if he did not mean to complain there was no reason to post about the incident.

[darkangel218]

29. He probably only bought bussiness for 5, and had nanny fly economy.

Typical snobby liar.

[delete_bush]

48. No, he booked 6 seats

in business class. It seems you are OK with stereotyping folks based on no information whatsoever.

I wonder if the player were black, would you then be going after British Airways for racism?

[darkangel218]

65. What proof do you have he did???

[delete_bush]

67. My "proof" is common sense

(1) There would be no reason for him to book the nanny in economy when obviously she was needed to help with the kids.
(2) Especially if he's going to complain about it after the fact
(3) He's worth $20 million or so, he can afford it
(4) According to the Daily Mail...

British Airways, which reportedly offered Poulter £200 in compensation for the downgrade, told the golfer it would be 'happy' to discuss the situation.

Why do you mindlessly refer to him as a "typical snobby liar"? Based on what? Is anyone worth more than you automatically a snob?

[Earth_First]

30. Business class? BUSINESS CLASS?!

Ian...your wife and kids fly business class?



Even Mitt's horse fly's charter to The Olympics...



Business class. :scoff:

[littlemissmartypants]

141. Blast from the past.

Dangerous for the horse, of course.
Not endorsed by Mr. Ed

Now kids don't try this at home. 

[LibDemAlways]

31. Years ago I worked in a travel agency. Wealthy people

with one or two children would routinely book first class seats for themselves and coach for the nanny and the kids. Cheap assholes.

In this case, if the golfer was so interested in having the nanny look after the kids, he should have taken the coach seat. I've seen a photo of Prince William sitting in coach. If he can do it, so can this guy.

[darkangel218]

34. He didnt fly, only his wife, the kids and the nanny.

I bet he is lying about the business ticket for the nanny, and he's twitting only to save face.

[LibDemAlways]

36. If it was so important that the nanny be with the kids,

then the wife should have removed her rear end to coach. It woudn't have killed her. Maybe she didn't mind and he was just being a whiny idiot when he found out about it. Bad PR in any case.

[blueamy66]

57. She needs to be moving her rear end, period....

nt

[littlemissmartypants]

138. Or NOT...

Four kids she been moving it sometime.

[blueamy66]

140. Well, you have a point there...

[Revanchist]

178. So I guess fat shaming is now okay on DU

as long as the target is rich?

[blueamy66]

202. Not fat shaming...

just suggesting that she moves a bit more....and takes care of the 4 kids that she brought into this world

[LanternWaste]

217. Clever way to rationalize it.

Clever way to rationalize it.

[blueamy66]

219. Rationalize what?

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you saying that she is fat?

[JHB]

33. Ian discovers that Twitter is an "open mike"...

...and not everybody is particularly sympathetic to his gripes. Especially his rich-guy gripes.

As Dad was wont to say in the face of similarly myopic gripes from kids: "Life's not fair."

[Fred Sanders]

35. I am not that sure about all the outrage. No outrage how he makes the money, why the outrage over

how he or other rich folk spends it?

Why can he not complain about the level of service he bought and paid for with the money he earned playing professional "put the ball in that there far away hole in as few whacks with a stick as possible, for 18 boring holes, each day, for four consequent days, rain or shine" game, for 40 straight weeks, just like poor folk?

You have to be outraged about the method of possession before yo get outraged about the method of consumption.

Which would make you a Commie, am I right, folks?

If you want a revolution, have it for the right reasons.

Ian Poulter is a true gentleman and family man, so his reputation says.

[JHB]

37. It was mostly the "katie has no help for 10 hrs w/ 4 kids" part...

Mum has to handle her own kids for a long trip? Boo hoo. Yeah, that's a headache, but if he's going to complain about that part to the whole world (which is what he did by putting it on Twitter), then it's fair game for the whole world to chime in on how they are not particularly impressed with the seriousness of his dilemma.

[Fred Sanders]

41. Man, wish I had a nanny to handle four young children on overseas flights, flying every week all

over the world....at least once in a while.

I would leave them all behind next time, maybe.

I think it is more avarice and jealousy, the green eyed monster, than hate of the rich we are seeing with these posts.

[delete_bush]

58. This thread should be destroyed w/o a trace

I stopped posting here for the most part many years ago, off to other sites where one could "engage" those with opposing views. Most of the Cons posting had no interest in facts or even a good discussion, merely posting from emotion, usually a 1 or 2 issue voter.

Funny thing is, THEY often referred to "Libs" as being exactly as I described THEM. This thread makes me wonder if perhaps they were on to something.

[leftstreet]

45. If he'd been poor, his concern for his wife would be okay?

How did the focus of the tweet responses go from Rich Dude With A Nanny, to criticizing the care taking responsibilities and skills of the woman?

[freshwest]

75. The solution might have been for some kids to join nanny in coach, I think.

[MH1]

68. I'm with you on this one. If I have a group and we book all our seats for business class,

I expect my entire group to be seated in business class, not have one downgraded.

He had a right to complain about the seat being downgraded.

I guess the amusement / bemusement / minor poutrage is that his complaint was his wife having to look after the four kids all on her own for - gasp - 10 hours! But wait - 4 kids actually IS a handful. For anyone, especially someone who is used to having help, and especially for many hours on a plane. Depending on their ages, the other business class passengers might have appreciated it if the nanny had been sitting with them too.

[Logical]

207. No, he was whining to the public about how hard his....

Wife's life was going to be for 10 hours when his fucking wife gets to take a nanny on a vacation.
Wow, difficult to understand?

[Logical]

206. If you don't get it then I imagine you might be like him! nt

[Fred Sanders]

208. We all imagine a utopian world without classes....communism I believe it was called. How did that

turn out?

Business divides everyone into classes as soon as you step out the front door, the media even more. And those guys are never wrong or self serving.

Get used to it or embrace extreme socialism, it is one or the other.

America decided long ago to get used to it.

[tkmorris]

209. Just stop friend

It aint about the money, not here. It's about some jackass complaining that for a few hours his wife had to actually take care of her own kids.

Further, your opinions on political/economic systems are simplistic and, well, wrong. This thread isn't about that though, no matter how much you want to hijack it in that direction, so start a new thread on it if you want to discuss that at more length.

[Fred Sanders]

210. I love a strong coffee in the morning!

[rock]

43. You know he could have let the nanny have his seat

[delete_bush]

51. You know,

you might take the time to actually READ the article before embarrassing yourself.

HE WASN'T on the flight.

[rock]

73. I was busy, the same as you

reading "Rudeness and Insults to Give to Strangers and Cretins Encountered on the Web!"

[Elwood P Dowd]

44. Why didn't he just pay buddy Phat Phil Mickelson to take her and the kids for a ride

in his personal 20 million dollar jet? Poor Phil could probably use the money since he is so, so overtaxed.

[blueamy66]

139. Don't be talking smack about Phil

nt

[Dirty Socialist]

47. I hope the mother chips her nails on the flight

"The horror! The...horror!"

[Takket]

50. Ian was NOT on the plane

He bought six tickets

1. Wife
2. Nanny
3. Child
4. Child
5. Child
6. Child

I think his intent was to complain about poor customer service in that he paid for a ticket that the airline essentially stiffed him on, not that his wife had to watch the kids. At least the wife stayed with the kids. She could have hid in the back of the plane and let the nanny deal with them all.

[delete_bush]

74. I'm sorry, your post is too reasonable

You actually took the time to read the article and put forth a reasoned post rather than respond with an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

I've been on a number of 8-12 hour flights, and I can't imagine what it would be like to take care of 4 kids for this period. He obviously planned this trip to make it as easy as possible for the family, which of course means his wife and the nanny were to be together with the children (which is a benefit to the other passengers as well). I'd be upset as well if an airline did this to me.

I'm amazed and appalled by the lack of comprehension/intellect as well as the mindless stereotyping exhibited by many of the posters here.

[cui bono]

98. There's nothing wrong with him being mad, but he is the mindless one for tweeting it out

when it's trivial compared to other people's hardships.

[delete_bush]

117. I don't tweet, don't follow tweets, don't

do Facebook or any other type of "social media". Thus my perception of what goes on, in what for me is "another world", is only from what I read and a few personal observations. And it seems to me that far too many people put out way too much stuff about their personal lives, and I couldn't care less about 99% of it.

Having said that, he has over a million followers and also seems to have a legitimate complaint re: BA, so it seems that this is what many folks do in the year 2014 - tweet first, think later, if at all.

So if he was 'mindless' to do so, then so be it. MY larger point, or at least the point I was attempting to make as expressed by the post to which you responded, stands, and would not be difficult to defend. If I were a Con and wanted to showcase 'liberals' in a poor light I would start with this thread.

[cui bono]

218. I can see what you're saying. For me though, it's about the fact that he tweeted it out.

And now that you say he has 1mn followers, it seems even more idiotic to me that he would do that. I don't know who this guys is or if I'm supposed to know, I don't know why he has 1mn followers, I read about him golfing, is he a pro golfer then? You'd think he would appreciate the fact that most of his followers are no where near rich and to me it's pretty tone deaf of him to tweet that out in public.

If it happened to me I would be very angry with the airline as well, and I may stupidly tweet it out in public, and I would expect to get the same reaction that he got. You gotta know your audience. And I failed that greatly myself yesterday, so I should know.

[hughee99]

128. Exactly, twitter isn't for everyone to just post every trivial detail of their lives...

Oh wait, that really is precisely what it seems to be for. But this guy is rich, so fuck him!

[cui bono]

216. What? You completely missed the point.

He can post whatever trivial detail of his life he desires, but it's a public posting, sent out to the masses, so he gets a response based on how people feel about it. And people can respond however they like.

I didn't say fuck rich people. Show me where I said that. I think that he is "tone deaf", as another poster elsewhere put it, in that he is complaining publicly about a problem 90% of the people would love to have rather than their own problems.

[hughee99]

234. You make twitter sound like it's only for "real" people with "real" problems.

Given that he's a celebrity I can see where you see this as being "tone deaf", although one could certainly argue that the "tone" of a twitter post is usually exactly this sort of stuff (people complaining or celebrating to things that 99.99999% of the population doesn't give two shits about).

As far as the "fuck the rich" that's for all the people that read this brief little blurb and starting drawing conclusions about how he must be a bad father or husband, that his wife must be a bad mother, or that their nanny must be mistreated or poorly paid.

[cui bono]

236. No, actually. I think twitter is for whatever you want to say.

Doesn't mean you should say it though. Like I said, he's just being "tone deaf". Saying something that can be taken as "rich man problems", especially when you have 1mn followers who are your fans, is very different than just anyone saying something no one gives two shits about.

That being said, I do believe he has every right to be angry with the airline and I would have been if I were him. I just don't think it's something he needed to tweet out to the masses and can totally understand the response he got.

[Takket]

213. are you kidding?

He tweeted that on his PERSONAL twitter account! It isn't like he demanded an article in a newspaper or formed a picket line in front of BA headquarters. Are you actually saying that someone can't use their personal twitter account to express their displeasure with terrible customer service???

If someone has a hang nail and wants to complain about it on their own personal account that is there business. They aren't forcing anyone else to read it.

[cui bono]

215. Are you kidding?

I don't think you know how Twitter works.

The only way Twitter is "personal" is if you lock your account so that only your followers can see it. Otherwise you are tweeting out to the whole world. That's exactly how it works. It's akin to going out on a crowded street corner and yelling it out to everyone there. If he didn't want everyone to hear it he could have just told a friend in a phone conversation or email or written about it in a journal, which would be akin to telling a friend over lunch or telling just the bartender. He didn't do that. He went to what is probably the most public way of posting on the internet there is.

And no, I'm not saying someone can't use their Twitter account to express their displeasure, but it is in no way "personal" as you seem to think it is, it was never meant to be, and anyone and everyone on the internet can read it and respond to it if they like. He was, as the other poster said, "tone deaf" if he thought that people wouldn't think he was complaining about "rich man's problems".

No one is forcing anyone to read a newspaper either, I don't know why you think that's a criteria for whether or not something is out in public or not.

[tammywammy]

79. Yes, I'd be upset if I was him.

[Cleita]

52. Let me play my tiny violin.

[mackerel]

54. I like how he later responds by saying he should be allowed to vent. LOL

I guess twitter is the rich guy version of FB venting? The comments are the best part of the article.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. On my last trip back from Asia, I was upgraded to business class, and

my only thought was, "Woohoo!"

But as we were boarding and I was getting settled in my comfy lie-flat seat and sipping my complimentary champagne, relishing the probably once-in-a-lifetime experience, a guy about two rows back was stopping every flight attendant and complaining loudly that he had asked to be seated upstairs (it was a 747), so why was he downstairs?

If there weren't any flight attendants around, he complained to the other passengers. He was saying things like, "My company buys hundreds of thousands of business class tickets per year, and this is unacceptable! I'm going to tell corporate travel to book me on some other airline next time!"

Finally, the head flight attendant, a dignified older man with some sort of European accent (German or Danish, maybe?) walked up to him and said, "Please come with me, sir."

I don't know where the flight attendant took him (I hope it was the cargo hold), but we had peace and quiet for the rest of the overnight flight.

Yes, rich people's problems indeed. The website Flyer Talk calls that behavior DYKWIA syndrome, DYKWIA standing for "Do you know who I am?"

[Fred Sanders]

59. He was an asshole who could have got the same thing being quieter, all types in all jobs.

[chrisa]

56. More garbage from The Daily Mail.

Of all the inane crap that goes on Twitter, suddenly this merits outrage? Most people would be pissed off in this situation.

Yes, it's an example of a rich guy whining about a luxury most people don't have, but pointing that out over and over again is so pretentious.

[Fred Sanders]

60. I got me a business class seat I paid for, I complained about the food, still terrible, I do not

expect to get Twitter-lynched, but maybe I should.

Chicken Marsala in a red wine sauce should not look brown and smell like coach class, should it?

If I cared about a virtual lynching that is.

[littlemissmartypants]

142. They got their money out of DU today.

At least on this thread.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. The example I use is when a rich guy says there's "trouble at home"...

It's when the butler and the cook are having an argument with the chauffeur.

[darkangel218]

66. lmao!! + 1

[lunatica]

71. Good help is so hard to find...

[whistler162]

122. And they are the same person!

[PowerToThePeople]

83. Why didn't the nanny and mother switch seats?

I know why. Fuck the rich.

[cui bono]

86. Why didn't HE and the nanny switch seats?

Since based on his tweet he isn't planning on helping with the kids at all.

[PowerToThePeople]

91. he was not on the flight

his wife, nanny, and the kids were on the flight.

How dare his wife have to sit next to a "coach seating" class person. Instead send the nanny back there and pitch a fit because Mother has to actually take care of her kids.

[cui bono]

93. Oh! lol. I'm still waking up.

[Iggo]

94. I don't think he was on the plane.

[delete_bush]

101. When he first learned of this

he should have chartered a private plane to fly alongside the British Airways flight. Then they could have someone figured out a way to insert him into the plane. Problem solved.

I've seen them do this in movies.

[whistler162]

181. The nanny won the rock, papers,

scissors, spock contest. 10 hours dealing with 4 young children versus 10 hours in crush class.

[Iggo]

88. My mom had four kids, no nanny, and worked two jobs.

I bet that golfer's wife figured it out just like my mom would've.

[hifiguy]

95. Where is a Looney Tunes style falling piano

when one is really needed?

Jebus, what a shitheel.

[sunnystarr]

96. If wifey couldn't handle the kids

She should have sat in the economy seat and let the Nanny deal with the kids in business class.

[Nye Bevan]

107. The mother probably wanted to stay with her kids. I know I would.

But taking care of 4 kids on a flight is sometimes not easy for a lone adult. I can understand the disappointment with British Airways.

And yes, first world problems, but has nobody here ever complained about their flight being delayed en route to vacation? How much sympathy do you think a Chinese sweatshop worker would have with you? But I guess that's different, because the desperately poor Chinese do not have Twitter to mock you with.

[WinkyDink]

97. It isn't his wealth-blindness; it isn't his tone-deafness. It is, in short, HIS TWEETING IT.

[cui bono]

108. Exactly. Nothing wrong with him being upset, just don't tweet it where others

who have far more serious problems can see it.

[DocwillCuNow]

103. What's his caddy doing this afternoon??? Just sayin'.

[littlemissmartypants]

144. You're funny. eom

[PuraVidaDreamin]

104. First World Problems

[link:http://m.

|

http://m.

[elehhhhna]

111. Okay.l I looked it up. His kids are 10, 8,3 and 1

Ian was not on the flight.

4 kids + Mom means the older 2 are across the aisle. Fine, they're 8 & 10 and you know they surely fly often. Managing a 3 & 1 year old could be a pain. Big deal. Depends on the flight. Transatlantic? That would suck a bit. So he complained. Big deal. I have learned that Twitter is the way to get a company's attention FAST. We had a prob w/ Comcast, my daughter tweeted them, and BOOM, they have a manager call us (!!!) and fixed it that night. Just saying.

[smokey nj]

112. My niece handles her 4 kids AND her terminally ill husband without the help of a nanny 24/7.

I can't muster up too much sympathy for these folks.

[Initech]

118. The world's tiniest violin plays just for Mr. Poulter:

[Inkfreak]

120. Oh, look. Twitter is all abuzz....

[littlemissmartypants]

145. Yep. nt

[JI7]

126. i hope the Nanny still got paid

[treestar]

159. Me too

It would not be a surprise if they considered her to be off the clock.

[delete_bush]

187. It would not be a surprise to me

if she were paid quite handsomely. I guess I just have a higher opinion of people than you. Sorry for your rather sad outlook on human nature.

[treestar]

212. That's a thing you'd have to look into I guess

Nanny won't be telling us. But I'm not that pollyanna-ish that it is not possible they considered her to be off the clock. After all, part of his whining was that poor Katie had to deal with the four kids. Nanny didn't. Rich people are often rich because they think of things like that.

[geomon666]

130. I have about as much sympathy for a rich man as a rich man has for me.

Which, is to say, none.

[barbtries]

143. was he on the flight?

can he look after his own kids? this proves that some rich people are completely out of touch with most people's reality.

[delete_bush]

186. was he on the flight?

A serious question. Do you just flit over to a thread, read the headline, then form an opinion based only on this scant information and then post? No reading of other posts, not to mention the article that was cherry-picked by the OP?

Thank you.

[barbtries]

200. i replied first then read the thread

thank you.

[littlemissmartypants]

146. What is best about this thread is

The resemblance to an episode of I love Lucy...

Running gag line:

He wasn't on the flight.

What I get out of the post is Papa Bear booked (lifted a finger) ~inconvenience happened~ Papa Bear solved problem. Daddy saves the day. End of story.

Thanks for your post, Liberal_in_LA.
I just wasted two hours of my life reading it.

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

[Liberal_in_LA]

149. two hours? slow reader?

[littlemissmartypants]

158. I was reading the braille version. nt

[PoutrageFatigue]

175. Wow. .. 10 whole hours with her own kids...?

Poor thing.....

[Ilsa]

177. Maybe now she'll know her kids better.

I wonder if she knew which ones were hers.

[hughee99]

179. Exactly, she must be a bad mother who pays no attention to her kids,

because her husband has money and hired a nanny to help her.

[delete_bush]

185. I give up.

I'm completely blindsided by many of the responses to this thread. This is really eye opening, and not in a good way. <P>Am I making too much of this? An anomaly, perhaps?

[hughee99]

189. It's a wealthy guy who spends a lot of time traveling and has 4 kids.

I can understand if a guy could afford it, and spends a lot of time away from home (like a successful pro golfer does), that he would hire someone to help out his wife with the children. I don't see the issue with this, and don't understand why there is an assumption that the mother must be a bad mom just because she has a nanny to help her. Maybe she is a bad mom, it's certainly possible, maybe not, but there's no information in the article to indicate there is, but a considerable bias against her.

[delete_bush]

190. Exactly.

(1) The parents of a family of four children book a flight on British Airways (BA) for the wife, the four kids, and the nanny to fly business class from point x to point y. The husband is not on the flight.
(2) According to the article, BA 'downgraded' the nanny's ticket to economy class.
(3) The husband then 'tweeted' about his experience with BA

I don't even know where to go with this. Posters are just making stuff up out of thin air, apparently because the family is wealthy. The kids are brats. The husband (posted by one who believes the husband was on the flight) is a dirt bag for not taking care of his kids. The wife should have gone to economy and let the nanny take care of the kids. One wonders if the wife knew which kids were hers. Or that anyone with 4 kids is a 'breeder'.

At least a dozen posters aren't even bright enough to realize that the husband WAS NOT on the flight. And when made aware of their error in comprehension just go to plan B, which is to rail on the rich guy.

Another poster, late to the game, wondered how the husband can "look after his own kids? this proves that some rich people are completely out of touch with most people's reality." REALLY? You're too dumb to realize he wasn't on the flight, and yet this proves that he can't take care of his kids.

I can site 30 posts that are so vapid it makes my skin crawl. I used to think that WE were the party of facts, logic, reason - NOT the knee-jerk, dogmatic, emotional one without the ability to engage in a reasoned debate. Sad to say I'm wrong.

[SunSeeker]

196. He didn't tweet "about his experience with BA." He tweeted about his wife's.

And in that tone - deaf tweet, he complained about how his wife, Katie, was left with "no help for 10 hours with 4 kids."

That tweet is what this is all about.

Most people on this planet with 4 kids spend all day with them, every day, with no help. So he comes off as a spoiled rich whiner.

That is why his tweet generated the backlash.

You really shouldn't be calling people here "dumb."

[delete_bush]

223. I would say that he in fact DID tweet

about his experience with BA...'"Amazing how British Airways have downgraded a full fare ticket when you buy 6 seats together in 1 booking". Regarding his wife's experience, I have no idea how she felt about it.

And I totally understand how he comes off as a spoiled rich whiner and the backlash, but that's an easy target. I'm more interested in the reaction of many of the posters. Without, apparently, knowing a thing about this family the mother is a breeder, a horrible mother, the dad is a useless male slug, all wealthy people are suspect, etc.

Here's one tidbit I found about this particular "useless male slug"...

"Ian focuses his charitable pursuits on two organizations that work with children and his own charitable golf tournament, the Ian Poulter Invitational. Ian works with DreamFlight, The Willow Foundation and his Invitational event to impact the lives of youth in the U.S. and U.K.

Dreamflight is a registered United Kingdom charity whose purpose is to take seriously ill and disabled children on their “Holiday of a Lifetime” to theme parks in Central Florida. The Willow Foundation is the only charity of its kind providing special days for 16-to-40-year-olds. Special days aim to provide young adults living with life-threatening conditions a chance to escape the pressures of their daily routine and share quality time with family and friends."

[SunSeeker]

226. No, the OP is about his tweet that his wife was left with "no help for 10 hours with 4 kids."

I am glad you finally acknowledge that tweet makes him come off as a spoiled rich whiner.

I think this dead horse has been beaten enough. If you want to delve into Ian Poulter's other tweets and research "tidbits" to rehabilitate his reputation, you are obviously free to do so. However, I am pretty sure you have better things to do with your life than to dwell on this thread. I know I do.

[rock]

204. I believe we'd better get a couple of things straight

You're rude and a bully, and I have seen you spew prattle on this post for so long you're really stinking up the place. Besides insulting other DUers for their low reading comprehension skills for which you seem to have even less of, you seem to enjoy pulling "facts" out of your ass. Nowhere in the article quoted is it stated that the dad was not on the flight. In fact it is strongly suggested that it is the "family" including the nanny that is making this trip. Whether you are a nine-year old or a mental deficient I do not know but you should learn some manners. Also you seem to take a personal insult from the criticisms that this rich person doesn't get great treatment from an airlines, he is after all rich! I hope you were able to follow this. I kept it as short as I could.

[delete_bush]

224. Which 'facts' have I pulled?

"Nowhere in the article quoted is it stated that the dad was not on the flight."

Regarding my low comprehensive skills, help me out here. He tweeted "Booked 6 business seats for my wife and nanny to fly home & BA downgraded my nanny so Katie has no help for 10 hours with 4 kids". This was part of the OP. And due to the fact that I usually also go to the complete article vs. the abridged version I followed the link, which states he "booked six business class seats with British Airways, for his wife Katie, their four children and their nanny".

And I would hope that all folks - regardless of race, color, creed, money or lack thereof - are treated fairly by those they chose to buy goods and services from AND if not they let the rest of the consuming public know about it. Why are you siding with the big bad evil corporation in this case?

[rock]

228. The article is mute as to the travel arrangements concerning the father

The article mentioned "family" which usually consists of the parents and children. The most natural assumption I could make was the father got a round-trip ticket and went to get the rest of his family. Whereupon he "booked six business class seats with British Airways, for his wife Katie, their four children and their nanny". Slow me down if I'm typing too fast. The link supports this as well. You might have at least wondered why so many people posted assuming the father was on the flight. Could it be their reading comprehension is superior to yours? "Oh nos!" Better to believe they're the ones at fault and try to bully them into accepting that. The original report simply failed to give us this detail and we went with what cues we had.

As for "I ... hope ... all folks - regardless of race, color, creed, money or lack thereof - are treated fairly". I certainly believe you on that one. I believe you're an ass to all.
You're conclusion that I am siding with the big bad evil corporation is another case of inadequate reading comprehension. Now whether you are not a native speaker or are someway mentally challenged, I suggest you develop a nice set of manners and hold off on the critique of others until you have improved those reading skills. Lots of luck with that.

[whistler162]

201. Appears that some believe....

if your husband works hard and earns a lot of money. You as the little woman should stay home and take care of the children. Probably bare foot and in the kitchen and pregnant up until you have 1.334 children. After that they should be spayed and neutered.

[Ilsa]

229. This was my

Reply to the other protestor: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5367330

You can ignore the last sentence.

[hughee99]

233. You are still doing all this based on the assumption that she doesn't take care of her

kids normally. Does she have it easier than most people? Sure, but I didn't realize that twitter was only for complaining about the worst of the worst issues, and at that, it's not even HER complaining about it. It's a husband who thought he was doing something for his wife to make her life just a little bit easier and it didn't work out right.

[Ilsa]

239. Not necessarily.

This one event was an opportunity.
And yes, hubby blew it by whining about her having to do what most mothers do.

[delete_bush]

192. I'm absolutely amazed at the

depth of your intellect. Thanks so much for sharing.

[Ilsa]

203. Let me rephrase that for you.

She's fortunate to have the opportunity to take care of her children for a mere ten consecutive hours. Doing so when everyone is tired and cranky gives her the opportunity to devise and exercise appropriate parenting strategies from which her children will learn and in which she can take pride as a mother who is learning her children's personalities. Hundreds of thousands of parents of children with severe disabilities do it, frequently without any assistance from distance family, community, or red-state governments that don't give a shit. Her husband might learn not to publicly whine about a single event that 99% families deal with every day, airplane or not.

I'll take back the over-the-top second comment I made. But I won't hold my breath over your retraction of your rudeness.

[delete_bush]

225. Extremely thoughtful post,

and very well written as well.

The tweeting world creates a situation where those who are followed seem to feel the need to, well, tweet! and often it's the case where a random thought, often made in haste, goes viral. I have no idea if this was the case with Ian, just saying. All in all, her husband doesn't seem to be such a horrible bloke...

"Ian focuses his charitable pursuits on two organizations that work with children and his own charitable golf tournament, the Ian Poulter Invitational. Ian works with DreamFlight, The Willow Foundation and his Invitational event to impact the lives of youth in the U.S. and U.K.

Dreamflight is a registered United Kingdom charity whose purpose is to take seriously ill and disabled children on their “Holiday of a Lifetime” to theme parks in Central Florida. The Willow Foundation is the only charity of its kind providing special days for 16-to-40-year-olds. Special days aim to provide young adults living with life-threatening conditions a chance to escape the pressures of their daily routine and share quality time with family and friends."

[Tommymac]

198. Typical 1% self centered self entitled family.

If his wife can't deal with her own 4 kids for half a day they should have put them up for adoption.

[haele]

211. Two different responses to the same tweet -

1. Tone was totally off. He should have been more pissed at BA for automatically downgrading a ticket in a "family" group - especially a group where there were more children than adults without either giving the option to re-book everyone on another flight or asking for a singleton in Business class to either upgrade or take a later flight if possible to ensure a family group would travel together. I suspect BA overbooked as usual, and made the change without telling the group they were doing it.

2. Even if it was supposed to be a "light-hearted complaint", it was pretty tone-deaf. Sorry it sounded as if his wife couldn't handle 4 kids on her own for 10 hours. But ultimately, that is a first-world 1%-er problem, and someone in his celebrity position should always remember that 99% of the people who would be reading a public tweet can not comprehend his issue and would probably take it wrong if they hear him complaining about something that, while it may be an inconvenience or a slight to his privileged status, is the reality of their own existence.

Haele

[rocktivity]

232. But why would you automatically downgrade a family ticket in the first place?

Last edited Thu Aug 14, 2014, 12:21 AM - Edit history (3)

If re-booking the flight wasn't an option, Katie should have asked for a downgrade of two of her kids' tickets and an upgrade of two people in coach, which would allowed her and the nanny to travel with only two kids each.


rocktivity

[rocktivity]

230. The broke up a party consisting of of two adults and four children?

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 01:32 PM - Edit history (13)

I don't blame Poulter for being pissed, and I give him props to admitting that the "poor wording" of his tweet is what caused the blowback. But the airline should have either had the people sitting next to the nanny in coach switch tickets with two of the kids, or put them all on the next flight -- all in first class, of course!


rocktivity