Receieved Wednesday, October 4, 2006
I was at the Gap shopping with my son and observed this interesting sight:
The woman was definitely the nanny. I was able to ascertain such because the nanny was of a different race than the child. Knock yourself out if you think that is a prejudicial observation, it's only deductive reasoning. The nanny was attractive and dressed very nicely; black pants, loafers and a red blouse. The child needed a haircut, had muddy blonde hair and green eyes and was probably six or seven years old. He had a hand held game system with him that he played the entire time. The clothing being selected was very definitely for this child as from time to time the nanny would solicit his opinion or hold something up to him. I was in line behind her. This was around three in the afternoon on Monday. The clerk asked the nanny if she realized that she had two different sizes in clothes. The nanny said yes. The nanny paid for the clothing (over two hundred dollars worth). Shortly after I left the store, I witnessed the nanny in the middle of the mall going through the bags and consdensing the bulk of purchases in to one bag. She handed bag two off to a friend/relative that was waiting outside the store. Clearly this is a case of a nanny shopping for her employer; someone who had been entrusted with her credit card who decided to seize the opportunity to get a little something extra for herself/her child/ her friend. Without trust, what is there?
13 comments:
Your conclusion that she was a nanny is the least of your presumptions.
i don't think you should be putting your assumptions on this site. if the parents were really worried about where the money was going they should ask for receipts.
To the above person. Three people witness a crime, they all see something different. Assumptions are woven through every thread of our being. Think of this. The person saw what she saw. How many parent sent their nanny to the Gap on Monday? Maybe the parents think the nanny is awesome? I had a nanny for two years. When we fired her in the end, it was for an incident where she left a new child unsupervised. We chalked it up to the fact that she never signed on to take care of a baby and found a nanny who wanted to take care of a baby. After she was gone, we realized things were missing. Things that can never ever be replaced. Those little things that you tuck in a drawer or keep in styrofoam. Collectibles. Gone. And once we realized that, everything "clicked" but alas it was tooo late!
To the person who suggested "I don't think you should be putting your assumptions on this site". I don't think you should be visiting this site. These are all events assumed to occur as described by one person's point of view. Take it as intended, with a grain of salt.
Assumptions are different from observations. This site seems to be for observations; if a parent sees something familiar, the parent can look into the situation and draw his or her own conclusions. This poster could have left her assumptions out and posted only what she observed. But instead, she chose to use language such as "I was able to ascertain," "[t]he clothing being selected was 'very definitely' for this child," "[c]learly this was a case of", "entrusted with [the parent's] credit card," and "who decided to seize the opportunity to get a little something extra for herself." Seems to me that none of these things would have been dispositively ascertainable from mere observation. When benign possibilities exist, I just don't see the need to be so accusatory when another method will do just fine.
dudette above with the legale ease-
take the stick out.
ahhhh feels good, right?
"The woman was definitely the nanny. I was able to ascertain such because the nanny was of a different race than the child. Knock yourself out if you think that is a prejudicial observation, it's only deductive reasoning."
Um....adoption? Or mixed-race parents?
My own biological children all look just like their (Asian) father, and not the slightest bit like (pale, fair-haired) me. I have been mistaken for their nanny before.
I know that when I have had a credit card from the parents I work with, I have always kept track of the receipts and handed them over. Nowadays, parents can go online and see an entire list of recent transactions.
I don't know what the real story is here, but if the nanny is messing with the account, I am hoping she will get caught somehow and the parents will be more careful with their methods of "petty cash" for their next nanny.
as a nanny i have shopped for the children but usually use my own credit card and later get reimbursed. many times i will buy things for myself at the same time and just highlight what they owe me for on the reciept. also, my nieces are often taken care of by their aunt (who is adopted and of a different race) so really you cannot state that the woman was "definitely the nanny" because of her race.
Oh no, I definitely could state a person was a nanny if I were the original poster. This isn't really a race thing. I have been in parks, playgrounds, restaurants and romper rooms and it takes only a few minutes of observation to deduce who is the nanny and who is not the nanny.
Did the original poster actually witness a credit card being presented at checkout, and did they compare it to the nanny/woman in question's driver's license to verify that it was NOT her name on it? Did they then verify the names of her employers so as to be quite certain that it was THEIR credit card being used?
Jeez, who's to say she didn't pay them cash later for her part of the purchases or that SHE didn't pay for it all and get paid back later for THEIR part? Or that she paid cash for 2 separate batches of stuff at the register? Or that she was asking the boy's opinion on things and holding them up to him because she was buying things for another boy close to the same age and size? You know what happens when you ASSume.
I'll bet you $100 (no reciept needed) that the original poster was right!
Never judge a book by its cover.. and why do people always assume the worst? Have we been so jaded by the few bad apples of society that we instantly think everyone is out to joust the other? Why couldn't of this mother/nanny been out buying a birthday present for a different child? Maybe doing someone a favor because they are sick or busy? Maybe they are not the child's regular care taker? There are so many lurking variables in this situation thats its almost impossible to debate.. but to automatically assume the worst is pure cynicism.
Post a Comment