If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Nanny from hell is in fact meting out justice   (gawker.com) divider line 185
    More: Followup, upland  
•       •       •

12857 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:05 PM (2 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-03 11:52:41 AM
Well done.
 
2014-07-03 12:11:09 PM
I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.
 
2014-07-03 12:31:56 PM

Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.


I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?
 
2014-07-03 12:40:43 PM

Barfmaker: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?


This will bring out those that feel Nanny was exploited and manipulated.
 
2014-07-03 12:42:41 PM

Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.


These laws are in place so that landlords can't take advantage of their tenants.

THESE landlords wanted a slave which is against the 14th amendment, seriously they want someone to do their bidding and that they don't pay -that's a slave.

So if this Nanny took them for a ride -I have no sympathy for them. None, zilch.
 
2014-07-03 12:48:23 PM
The amount of pure hatred directed at this woman blows my mind. She wasn't paid. Her employers skirted the law by not contributing to her SS much less giving her a salary. They opted to take advantage of someone vulnerable and unstable and they thought they should just be able to throw her out like garbage whenever they wanted?

Fark them. I hope she gives them hell

/I feel sorry for the kids.
 
2014-07-03 01:18:43 PM
White people problems.
 
2014-07-03 01:27:31 PM

Barfmaker: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?


Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?
 
2014-07-03 01:33:05 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

These laws are in place so that landlords can't take advantage of their tenants.

THESE landlords wanted a slave which is against the 14th amendment, seriously they want someone to do their bidding and that they don't pay -that's a slave.

So if this Nanny took them for a ride -I have no sympathy for them. None, zilch.


I have the feeling that all this will bite the family in the ass. They took a vulnerable, homeless woman with some mental health issues and exploited her. There will be legal ramifications.
 
2014-07-03 02:02:38 PM

timujin: Barfmaker: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?

Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?


They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.
 
2014-07-03 02:04:25 PM
Let's set aside who's douchier in this scenario.

The question I have is did the nanny sign a contract to assist with raising the kids for only room and board?   If there was no contract, both parties are idiots.  If there was a contract that the nanny agreed to she's an idiot and the family are asshats but the nanny should GTFO.  If the family agreed to pay her and didn't, she should be giving them a hard time.
 
2014-07-03 02:08:21 PM

jaylectricity: timujin: Barfmaker: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?

Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.


Ah, different stories, but the same point.  I guess even Aesop ran out of ideas now and again.
 
2014-07-03 02:09:58 PM
So, two wrongs DO make a right.  That's what we're saying, then?
 
2014-07-03 02:10:22 PM

slayer199: The question I have is did the nanny sign a contract to assist with raising the kids for only room and board?


I don't think it would matter as that contract wouldn't be legally binding.  Just because it's in a contract doesn't make it legal.
 
2014-07-03 02:11:02 PM
Well, that article changed gears rather quickly.
 
2014-07-03 02:11:10 PM

Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.


Lay day with dogs and rise up with fleas as the old saying goes.   Did they THINK an upstanding, professional, conscientious Child care provider would agree to their appalling terms.  WHO did they think they were going to get at those rates and what sort of amoral asshole would allow their children to be raised by the lowest bidder anyway?
 
2014-07-03 02:12:17 PM
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-07-03 02:12:51 PM
Wait.  They weren't paying her?  fark them then.
 
2014-07-03 02:13:13 PM
This is the sequel to Mary Poppins we deserve.
 
2014-07-03 02:13:41 PM
This has the makings of a great dark comedy.
 
2014-07-03 02:13:53 PM
 
2014-07-03 02:14:29 PM
The Bracamontes decided they needed a live-in servant to help care for their children

stopped reading or caring about those farktards right there.
 
2014-07-03 02:14:41 PM
I read the headline as Nancy from hell and thought of this wildebeast.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-03 02:14:56 PM
Satire?
 
2014-07-03 02:16:38 PM
Because two wrongs make a right?
 
2014-07-03 02:16:48 PM
Do they have some weird laws out there?  Room and board is traditional for a job like that in a lot of states.
 
2014-07-03 02:17:02 PM
So the judge makes you their personal butler.
/GOLD JERRY!
 
2014-07-03 02:17:03 PM

GoldSpider: Satire?


That was my first thought. Still, it sounds like both parties are idiots and jerks in this mess.
 
2014-07-03 02:17:18 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: slayer199: The question I have is did the nanny sign a contract to assist with raising the kids for only room and board?

I don't think it would matter as that contract wouldn't be legally binding.  Just because it's in a contract doesn't make it legal.


NOT a CA real estate lawyer but I would GUESS that the reason the familyis in this jam works something like this:

You can't really call the woman a live-in employee, who residence could be terminated at will with her employment, because they weren't actually paying her.  Therefore any "employment contract" is probably void for lack of valid consideration, unless the occupancy of the house was specifically called out as her "payment"

Since she's not a live in employee she is technically "tenant" and tenant acquire certain rights to where they are dwelling such that they can only be evicted by intervention of the courts through a valid writ of eviction duly served by a sheriff


that takes a bit of time to get the hearing date and longer for the sheriff to carry out the actual eviction by serving the writ and removing the person (plus certain conditions such as a lack of rain, no excessive heat/cold that day  etc) also need to be met.

The family never bothered to consult a lawyer  to learn all this before they hatched thier cunning plan and are now paying the price for that
 
2014-07-03 02:18:00 PM
Everyone is looking to take advantage of everyone else? I'm shocked!
 
2014-07-03 02:18:16 PM
jaylectricity:

timujin: Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.


I think "The Scorpion and the Frog" is not an Aesop fable, but a related fable which could have either predated or antedated "The Farmer and the Viper".
 
2014-07-03 02:18:27 PM
A contract must have a legal purpose.  You can't have a contract to kill someone.
 
2014-07-03 02:19:47 PM
When our kids were young, we were fortunate enough to have a number of au pairs to help out. Program was structured, with overview from the State Dept. They could only work so many hours per day, only so many days in a row, and they helped with the kids. Not your stuff. There were some households that pushed the boundaries of what was required....and there were au pairs who didn't do jack. We were lucky enough to avoid both situations.

The lady in this news story may be the nanny from hell, but the family could have gone the legal route, and chose not to. This is just the chickens coming home to roost.
 
2014-07-03 02:21:10 PM

slayer199: Let's set aside who's douchier in this scenario.

The question I have is did the nanny sign a contract to assist with raising the kids for only room and board?   If there was no contract, both parties are idiots.  If there was a contract that the nanny agreed to she's an idiot and the family are asshats but the nanny should GTFO.  If the family agreed to pay her and didn't, she should be giving them a hard time.


Considering another source where I read the nanny was a documented litigious twunt, I'm inclined to give the family the benefit of the doubt to an extent.  Their vetting process, whatever it was, evidently left much to be desired.
 
2014-07-03 02:21:11 PM

ginandbacon: The amount of pure hatred directed at this woman blows my mind. She wasn't paid. Her employers skirted the law by not contributing to her SS much less giving her a salary. They opted to take advantage of someone vulnerable and unstable and they thought they should just be able to throw her out like garbage whenever they wanted?

Fark them. I hope she gives them hell

/I feel sorry for the kids.


During Stretton's standoff with the Bracamontes, her litigious past has emerged. She has a long history of litigation and is listed on California's Vexatious Litigant List, which includes people who have been found to bring legal action that is frivolous or repetitive.

Um....she doesn't sound like such a vulnerable person as much as an actual predator.
 
2014-07-03 02:21:14 PM
If you don't get paid, where you gonna go when you leave the house? Can't even buy a candy bar. Obviously can't buy a clue.

/au pair mon frere
 
2014-07-03 02:22:24 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Wait.  They weren't paying her?  fark them then.


Yes, fark them then.  I agree with that, but I have no sympathy for her either as she never did any actual work, she moved in and claimed an injury.
 
2014-07-03 02:22:29 PM
They should have given her healthcare.
 
2014-07-03 02:24:48 PM
She could be an ISIS agent.
 
2014-07-03 02:25:24 PM
It's like they expect other people's grandmas to work for free, like the old lady is their grandma. You should have brought yours up from whatever country you came from cause white folks don't work that way, and especially not for illegal immigrant wages or lack thereof.
 
2014-07-03 02:26:01 PM

slayer199: Let's set aside who's douchier in this scenario.

The question I have is did the nanny sign a contract to assist with raising the kids for only room and board?   If there was no contract, both parties are idiots.  If there was a contract that the nanny agreed to she's an idiot and the family are asshats but the nanny should GTFO.  If the family agreed to pay her and didn't, she should be giving them a hard time.


Contracts are not binding if they are not legal in the first place.
 
2014-07-03 02:26:15 PM
There are no heroes here - everyone in the story is horrible, probably stupid, and are bad people and should feel bad.  Jerks - all of them.
 
2014-07-03 02:26:21 PM
So it goes for the Bracamonte family of Upland, California. The Bracamontes decided they needed a live-in servant to help care for their children, but they did not want to pay wages for that labor. Through some combination of greed, stupidity, and self-regard, they believed that in lieu of paying for the work, they could simply give the person they hired meals and a place in their house to sleep.

Well, I haven't come across this story before, but if she agreed to that when she took the job, then that's exactly what she signed on for. I don't know why that makes them "stupid" or "greedy", but then again, I don't write for Gawker.

Doesn't mean that these are great terms, just that you get what you pay for(On both sides of the transaction, in this case), so if someone agreed, it isn't somehow their fault.

If they didn't properly vet their new nanny, OTOH, then that is their fault. Still doesn't make them "greedy", though.
 
2014-07-03 02:27:53 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I don't think it would matter as that contract wouldn't be legally binding. Just because it's in a contract doesn't make it legal.


True, but that really wasn't the point.  Who in their right mind would even consider letting someone live in their home and interact with their children without a contract?   And if you can't have a legally binding contract because you're trying to skirt the law, then you really are moronic.
 
2014-07-03 02:28:15 PM

Ambitwistor: jaylectricity:

timujin: Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.

I think "The Scorpion and the Frog" is not an Aesop fable, but a related fable which could have either predated or antedated "The Farmer and the Viper".


A quick Google search says your right and that no one seems to know quite where or when "The Scorpion and the Frog" originated.
 
2014-07-03 02:28:29 PM
Raise your own dang kids, or don't have them.
 
2014-07-03 02:28:40 PM

timujin: jaylectricity: timujin: Barfmaker: Chariset: I agree that the family is scum, but that doesn't mean the nanny isn't a parasitical mooch.  Glorifying her behavior won't help anyone.

I think it's an understandable response to the sympathy being given to the family.

Even the ancient Aesop wrote a fable about this. A man was walking home in the winter and saw a snake freezing to death, he brought it in and warmed it by the fire and soon it came back to life and bit him.

As the man lay dying he said to the snake, "I saved your life, why did you do this?".

The snake replied, "Because I'm a snake, you know that when you brought me into your home"

So if you want to condemn the nanny then you need to equally condemn the homeowners who "hired" her. What did they expect bringing a homeless person who had nowhere else to go into their home to live? How did they THINK it would end when they asked her to leave?

Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.

Ah, different stories, but the same point.  I guess even Aesop ran out of ideas now and again.


It's also a great old blues song -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZrxDWzl5PA
 
2014-07-03 02:29:24 PM

justadadX3: There are no heroes here - everyone in the story is horrible, probably stupid, and are bad people and should feel bad.  Jerks - all of them.


demotivators.despair.com
 
2014-07-03 02:29:37 PM

Ambitwistor: jaylectricity:

timujin: Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.

I think "The Scorpion and the Frog" is not an Aesop fable, but a related fable which could have either predated or antedated "The Farmer and the Viper".


You're on the internet, for fark sakes. Why don't you look things up before offering your expert opinion?
 
2014-07-03 02:30:25 PM

jaylectricity: Ambitwistor: jaylectricity:

timujin: Wasn't that a scorpion and a frog?

They're both Aesop fables. "The Farmer and the Viper" is this one, "The Scorpion and the Frog" has the frog carrying the scorpion across a river.

I think "The Scorpion and the Frog" is not an Aesop fable, but a related fable which could have either predated or antedated "The Farmer and the Viper".

You're on the internet, for fark sakes. Why don't you look things up before offering your expert opinion?


I did.
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report