Full price babies at the Olympics(312 Posts)
I'm shocked by the conversation I just had with the London 2012 ticketing poeple. My dh and I were lucky enough to get tickets to the horse jumping on 8 August. Our baby is due 2 June, so was enquiring about what I need to do about tickets for the new baby.
They said eveyone needs a ticket - fine.
Children's tickets are £1 - fine.
But there are no children's tickets for the horse jumping so I have to pay £95 to have a 3 month old in a sling!!!
I said I was planning to bf and couldn't go without the baby.
They said the only alternative was to re-sell my ticket or give it to someone else.
I can't justify £95 and I know lots of people who would love the ticket so I guess I just have to transfer it. But I am fuming.
AIBU or are the 2012 people?
YANBU for fuming.
YABU to want to go to the Olympics. Tis the biggest rip-off in the history of London.
WTF?? I thought 3month would go free. I would contemplate to just turn up.
That's ridiculous to charge 95 quid for an infant in a sling that isn't even going to occupy a seat. If they charged you a nominal amount to take the baby that might be fair enough. The whole thing is ridiculous, there are people who bought tickets before their babies were even conceived - how are they supposed to know to buy a ticket for a child that doesn't exist yet?
There should be more complaining about this policy. It's nuts. It won't affect me as we haven't got any tickets and I intend to watch the olympics with my newborn baby from the comfort of my sofa. But I'd be gutted if I'd got tickets and then couldn't go. Perhaps there is some sexual discrimination angle to it, but I doubt you'd get far with it tbh.
Yabu for calling it 'horse jumping'!!
BTW, my baby is due on 19th June, but we decided to give it a miss just because I cannot imagine what the traffic/public transport will be like with such a small baby (plus dh is disabled, plus we are happy watching sports from the couch).
"Perhaps there is some sexual discrimination angle to it, but I doubt you'd get far with it tbh."
I think it is always worth a try. I am sure there are many parents in this situation and MN is a great forum to gather a mass complaint.
It's bloody stupid. The baby isn't taking up a seat, and if they're worried about fire regs or whatever then it's not as if the baby isn't going to be with you at all times - essentially you should be counted as one person IMO. The baby's not using the facilities on its own!
I have no idea how they can justify £1 for a child ticket with seat, but then charge £95 for a baby not taking up a seat.
Sounds very money-grabbing to me and I would definitely keep complaining.
I was under the impression that it went on ages, £1 for a 1 yr old etc meaning a babe in arms would prob be free. That sounds nuts, I can't believe it!
We thought about going to the sailing but decided with a 2 yr old and a prob 3 or 4 month old it would be a nightmare.
But even if taking a seat, surely a seat is a seat? Why the set number of adults and kids?
Go to the press, I'm sure they don't know or they would have trumpeted it far and wide.
I think there is a discrimination angle - essentially women should not have had the audacity to bid for tickets in case they conceived in the meantime. If the woman is breastfeeding she can't attend without the baby. An older child using a seat would be a different matter, but that child would already have existed when the tickets went on sale. Under ones should be allowed in free on parents lap.
Perhaps I'm being naive but I don't see why you can't just show up with your baby on the day without a ticket? They will let you in and it won't be an issue
Well they might turn you away and then you have missed your chance to get your money back on your ticket and have spent lots of money making a wasted journey with a small child. I wouldn't want to do that.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
This is odd- have taken dd when baby to sports events (cricket and rugby) . Never had to buy a ticket on basis that she would be in sling/on my lap.
I think points made above about potential long wait to get in/out and long event relevant with baby. Rugby was manageable but cricket games too long for dd. I imagine eventing/show jumping sessions likely to be longer than rugby game .
We got some v popular tickets for athletics and are hoping family at other end of country will be willing able to look after ds who can't come & sit on knee etc- we didn't know about him when we did ballot but can't buy ticket either
Even if we had it would be a waste as he'd be on our knee, which would seem even more criminal that the seat gets wasted!!
It's bloody ridic!!
This thread making me feel glad- we got one set of tickets but now decided to sell those and go on holiday instead due to commute nightmare during Olympics .
Well I say sell but apparently the reselling website not working...
Gigondas can I have 'em?!
I definitely wouldn't "just turn up". The FAQs on the ticket-selling site are quite clear that babes in arms need tickets and the travelling will be hellish enough without arriving at the gate and being turned away!
But this policy isn't just confined to the olympics. My local football team made a final at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff a few years ago and there was coverage of people having to buy regularly priced tickets for small babies - although there was probably a children's rate.
YABU for calling it 'horse jumping' transfer your tickets so somebody who at least knows what the sport they are going to see is called can get a chance to go
YANBU in regards to being asked to pay £95 for an under 1 but I already believe that the tickets prices go against the Olympic spirit, they are not accessible to most of the population due to the cost. I will be watching the show jumping, eventing, dressage and para dressage at home with my dd wishing we could have been there but glad at least we know we will get a good view of the action.
When you get quotes from car insurance companies (bear with me here) some will quote a shockingly high amount because they just don't want you as a customer. I think that if there are no child prices for the event you are going to then they are probably saying they don't really want babies attending.
I'd just turn up and raise hell if they don't let you in.
You could wear a light, baggy t-shirt over the sling and smuggle the baby in!
I once worked on front of house for a farming event. It was held on a school day and there were no children's tickets - set up to discourage people from bringing children, mainly because of insurance issues, there was large farm machinery etc on display. Of course many did anyway as the children were part of the farm workforce and they wanted to bring them as a learning experience.
However any babies/toddlers being carried we were instructed not to charge for - it seems odd that they would charge for this.
do your coat up when you go in and have a lovley big handbag accross the front ;)
Have you seen the plans for security at the Olympics? Smuggling things, including babies, will not work.
I would have thought if the baby was in a sling they could not possibly refuse you entry.
This is not news. Mnetters have been complaining about it on the Pregnancy Forum since November or even earlier.
It is bloody rididculous though!
"I would have thought if the baby was in a sling they could not possibly refuse you entry"
Why not? The policy is quite clear - babies pay. They have to have a seat. If you choose not to use it, that's your choice.
Also, if the event was eligible for children's tickets, the baby would get in for £1. If no child tickets are available, it is presumably one of the most popular events. Therefore the baby in question would be using a seat that someone else, who actually wanted to watch the show jumping, could have been using.
If the OP wants to watch the show jumping enough, she will have to make arrangements for someone else to care for her baby. It can be done. But with such a small baby, she may find it less stressful to sell the ticket to someone else and relax at home in front of the TV.
The pay your age ticketing was limited to a very small number of tickets as far as I know. A seat is a seat as far as it goes so we're paying full whack for 4 for swimming. I'm surprised about a baby in a sling though.
korma babies in slings do not use seats, it is not a matter of choice but a fact of life.
I had this situation when I had tickets for Harvest At Jimmy's Festival in 2010.
The organisers weren't interested and I had to buy another full price ticket.
Write to the Maily Dail about it - discriminating against women etc!
Horse jumping ???
<wonders how the OP would describe dressage.........horse dancing?>
The beauty of the Olimpics is that they popularize some sports that are not normally in the headline news.
Those who mock OP's innocent mistake come out looking rather petty methinks.
But what are 'olimpics' bemybebe
haha, sorry, "Olympics" (was typing too fast)
Also, English is not my first language and if you are as fluent in mine as I am in yours I would be every impressed
i'm not mocking - i like horse jumping. i think all events should be more descriptive. like "throwing the long stick far" and "bouncing". i prefer it
You are about fourth to bring up "horse jumping" out, hardly just quietly point out it is not the correct event title... but then there is nothing like joining in with the crowd, eh (and I mean it in the nicest way)?
I think you probably got some numpty on the phone. Just turn up with him/her- I am 99.9% confident that no-one will challenge you. Although in your shoes I'd be extremely tempted to go the press now with it.
Anyway, I am sorry for derailing a serious subject of two parents not able to join the family event with their 3mo baby in the sling unless they pay 95£.
its because i DO horse jumping IRL - so it tickled me. DH calls it "prannying about" so i prefer the ops title.
I thought so catgirl. Good luck for the Olympics (or was it olimpics?)
It isn't just a numpty on the phone. They have clearly stated on their website that this is their policy.
I'm a liiiiiitle way from olimpic standard I am not sure team GB close their eyes when the jumps are big
Nevermind, maybe next time! But you would be supporting the Team, so "good luck" is still relevant.
Catgirl, people who do trampolining generally call it bouncing and themselves as bouncers, I reckon more sports should go for the simple descriptive
oh yes - and thank you! go team gb!
i did not know that midnight -i love the term bouncing - it sounds so happy! i agree this is the way forward!
I have four tickets to the tennis: me and DH, Ds1(£2) and DS2 (£1). I only applied fir tickets where children's prices were available.
But do you really think they are going to let a 2yo and an 8mo into centre court?! Not sure I would....
"korma babies in slings do not use seats, it is not a matter of choice but a fact of life."
I am aware of that, but the organisers have decided, for whatever reason, that each human being present has to have a seat allocated to them. Madness, possibly, but quite clearly stated on the ticketting website.
I imagine it is about fire safety numbers or whatever they call it.
We have a similar situation in that we didn't order any paralympic tickets for our DC2 who will be 8mthsish, but by that age hopefully we will get away with a few bottles and some solids with a local to the event babysitter...
Of course £95 makes fire safety so much easier to manage
If you were able to get your baby into the event what would you be planning on with regards to changing bags, feeds etc. How do you plan on doing this within the very small confines of allocate seating, bearing in mind that you will be seated next to someone who has also paid £95 for their ticket and may well not expect a small babe in arms so very close to them.
And please don't flame me, I love children and try to expose them to all kinds of events and scenarios, but there are some places where it is simply not practicable.
'Express and leave the baby at home.'
Like its that simple. So rarely is it that simple.
When people say that it makes my teeth itch.
I agree with Molly. If I'd saved and chosen to spend a lot of money to enjoy a big sporting event, and of course had made arrangements for my children to be looked after elsewhere, I would be very unimpressed with someone trying to squash a baby and all the paraphanalia into a seat next to me. As parents, you sometimes have to accept that you can't just do everything you'd like to do, once you have a baby - sometimes it's just time to think that unfortunately you'll have to give this one a miss, but it's all worth it for the great experience that is, being a parent, however, once a parent, life does change, part of that change is fantastic, and part of it means you are no longer a totally independent adult, but you have to think about what's going to be practical.
Its very annoying and ill conceived. We wanted to see a popular event where the cheapest tickets were £50 which would be £300 for all of us so we decided not to bother. However we knew how many dcs we would have with us before the Olympics starts so we could plan accordingly. Its not reasonable to charge for babies in slings who weren't conceived at the time of ticket release.
I was expecting DD when we bid for tickets, she will be 9 months when we go. We also have DS who will be very nearly 3. We couldn't get the age specific children's tickets so had to buy 4 full price, at an eye watering cost of nearly £400. It does seem a lot when half of the party will barely register what's going on, but as I'm fast figuring out, life with 2 kids just is bloody expensive - this is just one more in a long line of rip offs.
Write to Boris about it.
We're taking our dcs to the canoe sprints at eton. Dd will be 2 and DS 10 months. We're going for the heats only because I was too tight to pay for full price tickets for the kids especially DS since he will have no clue as to what is going on. Dd on the other hand will be a seasonned veteran of watching canoe racing since she comes racing with me most weeks.
Horse Jumping? One of my horse mad friends missed out on tickets so you can give her hers if you like? She knows what it's called.
I don't blame them for making a 3 month old baby have a seat. It isn't just the baby is it? It's all the equipment a baby needs. Huge nappy bag and god knows what other clobber you'll have to bring with you. It would help to have another seat to put your stuff on. If I was sat next to someone with a baby in a sling, a huge bag at her her feet and the annoyance of her crying baby, boobs in, boobs out, burping, puking baby next to me when I've paid nearly £100 for seats I'd be fuming. People pay a ticket to see the sport not the irritation a young baby's needs.
Seeing as they can't give you a seat, I wouldn't pay £95 to take a baby in a sling. 3 months isn't all that young: just for once express and leave him/her with a sitter. I think you'll find neither you nor the baby will die.
It is generally accepted that a new baby is an adjunct of its mother, especially if BF.
Except at some weddings, and apparently the Olympics.
A1980 are you the person who came up with this policy by any chance?
Or the person who sat behind me at rugby saying dd had no business being there....
Is it that bloke from Hi-De-Hi who recently berated a MNer for BF and attracted a sustained wiki attack?
The baby eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
Who cares what she called it, I mean really.
I know this is all a bit tongue in cheek, but imagine OP called it horse jumping so that the 99% of MNers who are not horsey had a vague clue what she was on about (not because she doesn't know the name). If I tell people my hobbies are eventing, show jumping, dressage and team chasing they have no idea what I'm on about - if I tell them I like prancing about on ponies, and even more like charging about on them leaping over hedges and fences they understand (although still think I'm unhinged!!)
Same problem here. We have tickets for an event where our children had 'pay their age' tickets. So the 4 year old is £4, the 2 year old is £2. I had initially assumed that the (not yet conceived at the time of ticket purchase) 3 month old would under the same criteria be £0 and sit on my knee, until I read the threads before Christmas on here.
Given that there are 'pay their age' tickets, blatantly there is no problem admitting small children. If I had applied for a ticket for a zero year old at the time on the off-chance of having one, presumably I would have had a chance of being allocated 5 tickets instead of 4, thereby stopping a person who wanted a seat and really wanted to go from getting a ticket. Mad.
It would be cheaper to take a babysitter with you (£8 an hour?) they sit with baby in pram outside. You both have phones and you leave to fed when needed.
No way would I want a 3 month old on my lap for something like that £95 or not.
I really don't think the Olympics is any place for babies or any small children. The stress levels of keeping them quiet and under control would be unbelievable!
With all the distractions, your baby might not bf well, which could lead to a quite whingy baby (talking from experience on this point). You could end up missing the entire event as you constantly try feed and settle your baby.
It really is not fair on the people you will be interrupting and inconveniencing. Imagine if you cannot quiet the baby and need to move to a quiet area once an event is underway. You may need to walk in-front of a row of people with a squalling baby in arms, baby bag and other stuff in tow. And are there likely to be any restrictions on moving about once an event is underway?
It really can be as simple as express and leave with a baby sitter. Start expressing milk and freezing it a few weeks in advance, so you won't be under pressure to have enough milk expressed. Start looking for a babysitter now. And enjoy a baby free day with your DH.
Just stuff baby in your jumper. If they notice shout out:
"OMG I have given birth, we shall name her (excuse me Mrs Ticket Checker lady what is your name?) OK no, we won't call her that, we shall call her Greenwichia"
A1980 just hope that the OPs baby does not grow up to become one of the Countries top Show Jumpers in future years and you get refused entry to any display he/she participitates in,you are very uncaring,where do you think our future athletes are going to come from in years to come,IMO anyone who pays these stupid amounts of money for these Olympics tickets after the Country paying ever increasing amounts for them to be staged must have more money than sense,or is it just to be able to say they have been to the Games.Take your baby with you and if questioned tell them sorry but you are B/F and would they like the Worldwide Media informed of their stupid system.
A1980 just hope that the OPs baby does not grow up to become one of the Countries top Show Jumpers in future years and you get refused entry to any display he/she participitates in,you are very uncaring,where do you think our future athletes are going to come from in years to come
WTF are you on? A month old baby denied entry to watch the show jumping and was unable to fulfil her dream of becoming a champion show jumper?! What do where our future athletes come from have to do with this scenario.
I don't even like equestrian sports. I would never consider taking a baby to the olympic games either.
The OP is not being denied entry. 3 months is not too young to be left with a babysitter.Tthere is no reason why she can't go without her baby she just wants everything herway, right now and life doens't work like that.
Also start flaming MCos too: she doesn't think the olympics are any place for a baby either and she's right.
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
Full priced babies at the Olympics?
That's a pity as I was hoping to pick up 3 babies for the price of 2 at the Olympic Baby sale. Maybe the price will fall after the games are over.
I think many attendees will be surprised to find out how cramped the seating will be at some of the more popular events. I think it does make sense to have every person having their own seat. I mean, who doesn't think "oh crap" when they land an airline seat next to someone with an infant on their lap, because actually, they do encroach into your space. They simply can't help it. Well some of these Olympic venues will make Easyjet look spacious.
If they dont have this policy, at what age do they make the cut off for own seat required? 1? 2 like airlines (heaven forbid)?
MN at its best eh, scaring off the OP.........
The anti-baby policy is completely unreasonable -- clearly shows that mums were not involved in devising this policy. I attended several hockey games and opening ceremonies at the Vancouver games with a 3 month old (their policy was you could bring a 0-2 year old, no problem). It was NOT a problem. As a rule, there were diaper changing facilities in all restrooms. And I had bought the tickets before the baby was even a sparkle in his mum's eyes. For those parents who bought their tickets in the Spring of 2011, and now have a baby on the way, the only real option is to forego attending with the baby. That is out and out discrimination and should be challenged for the bull that it is. WHO WILL STAND UP TO THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Unfortunately babies, however young, are still counted as a full person for fire safety purposes - whether they take up a seat or not. Fire safety capacity limits are legal maximums for event spaces. So if the organizers have managed (as they are trying to) to get as many people as possible into events, they will not have any spare capacity to let an unticketed baby in. Whether they overlook it on the day or notes anyone's guess, but an official, high profile event
Ike this isn't going to have an advertised policy that they are going to ignore their control mechanisms.
The Olympics organizers could have kept some tickets back (and raised slightly other ticket prices) to be given away for this sort of thing. I think they should of, but I think it's a close thing to say other people should pay more so that a baby can take the place of a child or adult who would actually get something out of the event itself.
Show jumping is quite a quiet sport though isnt it?I wouldn't want my baby to yell at an inopportune moment, put a horse off, throw it's rider, rider breaks collar bone (isn't that the horseridery injury?) team GB lose gold medal, whole nation hates me (and my baby). Rupert Campbell-Black will never sweep me off to Penscombe to be ravished if I allowed that sort of behavior
What's more, first it's the odd tiny baby in a sling, next it's a line of pushchairs the size of small cars. New (ish) patens do tend to be a bit self-absorbed and unaccomodating. I should know I am one <frazzled>
A1980 I'm a lawyer, I regularly appear in the High Court and I've never encountered a High Court judge who has a problem with bringing baby into court. If it needs breastfeeding its far less disruptive to all for the client to breastfed baby in court than to have it screaming outside court. In fact one of my clients gave evidence in the witness box with baby breastfeeding. We all discreetly averted our eyes as she latched baby on.
Jeez have I really been deleted???
The woman called me "cuntface" and I'm not allowed to suggest that she has a wankerish attitude?
And spotty I made the same point (I am a barrister who used to schlep round the crown courts) but it seems that valid point has been deleted due to the above
"I am aware of that, but the organisers have decided, for whatever reason, that each human being present has to have a seat allocated to them. Madness, possibly, but quite clearly stated on the ticketting website."
Clearly this is to prevent people turning up with their husbands or girlfriends sitting on their shoulders, claiming they wont need a seat. Sheeez.
spot on "wankerish attitude" from her sara
there is no reason that these event cannot be organized in such a way that families feel welcome.
it is not like taking a baby to an academic library reading room, to a challenging classical music event or a formal reception ffs
Incidentally I just attended the finals of the show jumping global champions tour along with my DC's 7,6 and 9mths. The crowd was made up almost entirely of families and DC4 was by no means the only baby.
We left our prams outside, DC's were given bags of promotional gifts and there was a play area with bouncy castles and pony rides for when thebDC's got bored.
Difference is we aren't in the UK and DC's aren't generally treated like a pita.
I am also absolutely amazed that in the UK people, some of which are "parents" themselves, treat children as nuisance. I am a foreigner, albeit in the Uk since 1993 and just cannot get used to this attitude. There is something very victorian in this...
You might find this news link useful.
It is discrimination, pure and simple, and other countries don't seem to have this backwards attitude towards babies and the adults caring for them.
As for 'paraphenalia' - A-whatevernumberitwas - you're doing it wrong, dear! The baby is in a sling. She is breastfeeding it. All she conceivably needs are two or three nappies and some wipes, maybe a spare vest top if the baby's prone to reflux. It'll be summer and warm. All of that lot, slung baby included, fits well within the adult's footprint. Nappies can fit in a modest handbag. Or do you think the Olympic committee should start legislating against the size of bag that parents can carry into events?
It's discriminatory on gender grounds if it prevents breastfeeding mothers from attending the event.
Olympic Committee, watch us, we are taking you on. The arrangements for families have been abysmal, we are all completely hacked off about the whole setup anyway, and we feel utterly disenfranchised. You think the opening ceremony will involve fireworks? Well just watch MN as it gets nearer the blasted Games.
Norks out a la Madame Liberte, gels. Flashmob feed-in.
I agree - it does feel like discrimination. We are lucky to have 4 tickets for the sailing, which as far as I understand it doesn't even come with seating (am presuming someone will correct me if this is wrong!). We will apparently need another ticked for a baby not even born yet and certainly not conceived when we bid for tickets. Apparently we will need to bid again in April when more tickets go on sale, although priority will go to those with no tickets at the moment. Not holding out much hope there.
If I cannot get another ticket, then it looks as though the baby won't be able to go and so neither will I. I normally keep well clear from the breast vs bottle discussions, but this does feel like discrimination against those people who are breast feeding. And those unable/unwilling to leave a very small baby in the care of someone else.
So I hear the fire safety issue - but surely selling tickets over a year in advance must have raised the possibility of this happening? For what its worth, I would be taking a buggy for my existing children regardless of the new baby.
I think babes in arms could be free if cinemas can manage this.
Just read the sub title for this thread on discussion of the day. Am not objecting to being charged for an as yet unborn baby (am not even aware of the charge if any that such a ticket would cost) but I am objecting to the fact that I now need to get another ticket that in all probability won't exist. Stopping me and potentially my family from going. Will presumably be harder for those with allocated seats (unless they want to leave the baby in a seat rows away from them ).
It will be a while until I know if I can even get another ticket (April, provided the website is working by then), regardless of the cost, and probably too late by then to be able to re-sell any tickets we are subsequently unable to use.
tilder - if you're taking a buggy, take a Phil & Teds or similar and hide the baby in the bottom. If the buggy's searched and the baby found, express astonishment, turn round and berate one of the older children: "I told you to leave the baby at home today!" . Then if you're not allowed to take the baby in, hand him/her to security guards and give them a couple of spare nappies. Bet security guards would change their mind quickly!
I can't understand the inconsistency here. There is no logic behind charging a nominal rate for children at one event, an age-based fee at another event and having no child rate at a third. If children have to pay full price because they're taking up a seat, then any child not requiring a seat shouldn't have to pay.
Either children are allowed or not. But saying that babies are not allowed when children are is blatant age discrimination; arguing that a ticket should have been booked before that baby was too young to exist is further evidence of age discrimination, not defence against it.
Not that I'll be going to any Olympic events. I would be taking DD and newborn DC2 to the playground in the park except that our park will be full of bloody jumping horses and closed for months, and the roads are all being ripped up and designated 'special VIP routes', with buses diverted, so we won't be able to enter or leave our own neighbourhood for the duration. Still, at least we'll enjoy the legacy... except that there isn't one, apart from a promise that the park will be returned to its original state. Possibly. I think we'll get the train to Paris for a month or so
Theres a thought! Would be an interesting reaction.
Didn't mean to rant, this has just really irritated me.
Aishling, I have not been able to get tickets, and my youngest would be three so I'm not breastfeeding any longer. But what I would say is that DS1's theoretical half hour East Anglian journey to school has been hellish for the past year because of the engineering work on train lines in preparation for the Games. We end up having to drive him quite often, even though we have paid for a season ticket. The replacement bus service is a joke. He is absolutely furious that he is expected to put up with all the discomfort and inconvenience when the Games are so London-centric, and children across the rest of the UK are effectively excluded and disenfranchised as a group from the whole thing. And I agree with him. I think it's actually put him off sport to a large extent, and he is not alone amongst his friends. Great legacy, that.
FWIW you can't take a buggy into the olympic venues either.
We're in the same situation and decided that we'd be better off getting our money back - feels very sad that the olympics is going to be on my doorstep and I'm not going to attend...
I've thought about this some more and come to the conclusion that it must be the particularly noise-sensitive events they're effectively excluding babies from.
But we are going to watch sailing. Not particularly noise sensitive and we are effectively being excluded from that.
Didn't know about the no buggy rule either - will have a look to see if that applies to Weymouth as well.
Apologies to all Mumsnetters annoyed by my journalistic inquiry. I didn't realise the form. But as a mum of two babies under 2, I agree with the overall sentiment being expressed here. I've taken both my boys to football matches (as young as 3 months) and it's been absolutely fine. I get health and safety concerns but Locog should be more practical and just issue a free accompanying 'ticket' to affected spectators
Wear a crazy hat and a big coat chances are they'll not even notice the baby in the sling
I am in this sitution too. My baby will be 4 months old when i am supposed to be attending the athletics. Bought the tickets before conception and intending to be exclusively breast feeling at that stage (third baby so have a pretty good idea). I am lucky in a way in that I could leave the baby with my mum who lives within an hour for two's journey of the Olympic park (at a guess) but actually feel really uncomfortable being away from such a young baby for at
least 6 hours.
So really I think I might end up giving away the ticket (my dad and two children and one other could still enjoy it). But it is sex discrimination and I am sure we should all be writing to our mps or something. Mind you I am also not 100% sure about the thought of battling through the crowds on the train to Olympic park with a tiny baby in arms.
Perhaps the answer is to take one or two extra people and take it in turns to watch the ticketed event and enjoy the day out in the park generally watching big screens etc.
I'll also be in this situation. I hadn't even considered it - assuming that as my baby will only be 6 months old by this point and will be in a sling, that she would be accommodated without extra cost or fuss. How can the organisers of the London Olympics justify this when there's precedent from numerous other Olympic Games where babes in arms are accommodated without comment? Bloody ridiculous and frankly, yet another black mark against the ticketing scandal.
It's most likely a licensing issue. Every person who attends the event will have to be covered by the license otherwise the insurance is null and void. Entertainment events have to be licenced (try organising a circus at your school or a firework display or even a school fair). A baby is still counted as a person so must be covered by a ticket - whether it's £1 or £95 is irrelevant. Perhaps a small line of information next to the children's ticket option could have mentioned the need for a baby's ticket.
You wouldn't consider taking a baby in a sling to events such as a Take That concert, Chelsea v Man Utd or an Alice Cooper concert would you?
I think they did make their policy quite cla in the first round. The issue is though that the tickets were on sale so early that these babies were not conceived yet when we were making plans. I do feel very reluctant to give away one of "the greatest tickets on Earth". I feel really lucky to have a ticket and think that a baby in a sling will not cause a problem and I was looking forward to soaking up the atmosphere with my family.
I went to a take that concert just before I was pregnant and it would have been tricky with a baby but not impossible. (hmmm thinking about the queue to get out and the long walk home - maybe not)
I'm due around the time of the Olympics, we couldn't have gone anyway (cost) but had we, it's interesting to know that a late baby would be able to 'sneak in' hidden in my womb, but one born early and carried in a sling would need a ticket. Would have put a lot of pressure on baby to arrive at the right time.
Of course, I can't imagine I'd be comfortable making such a long, busy trip when there is a chance going into labour. I will enjoy the Olympics coverage on TV curled up with my new born. I enjoyed the Bejing and Vancover coverage, and at least this time there won't be the time disconnect. It would have been great to have been there though I'm a huge fan of the Olympics, but I guess I'll be busy learning how to be a mum so won't miss it too much.
Disappointed (but unsurprised) that quoting a series of posts on a forum board passes as journalism these days. Unattributed, no official response, really pathetic...
I'd also be interested in the mechanics of how one buys tickets for an un-named, un-concieved person on the off chance that they will exist.
I have to say I will have a 5 month old and didn't even think about going as I would have her/him with me. I would ask again if I were you and make a fuss as it ridiculous as it won't even be taking up a seat.
Tbh I think talk of fire safety is a red herring - if this was an issue then why do babies not require their own seats on planes? There should be no problem issuing a ticket for a babe in arms that enables them to be counted in attendance records for safety reasons, without them having to have a seat. Ditto the issue of buggies and change bags - these are more necessary for one- and two-year olds than babies, ime.
If the disruption caused by small children were really an issue in the organisers' minds then they would have not sold tickets for one to five year olds in the first place, would they? The point is that the games are an inclusive affair, comparisons to nighttime rock concerts are a bit facile.
I have written to my mp about this and she is being very helpful. I urge anyone else who is unhappy about this to do the same.
Incidentally I am the named ticket holder for my family's tickets and I understand this may mean I have to cancel all our tickets if I just want to cancel mine, so either none of us go or we suck up the cost of my ticket though I won't be there.
Another article, this one's in the Guardian
Frustrated mod - I think they have now said you can give away or sell tickets at face value to people you know so should be able to either use or sell just your ticket if you decide not to go.
Ah ok thanks nettee, that's clarified things for me. I'm still bloody pissed off that I can't go, though. I have been looking forward to it since London got the Olympics. I'm also frankly pretty peeved that I have to not go, while my husband still gets to even though he is less interested than me.
I'm still bitter about not getting ANY tickets.
DS1 was only days old when London won the 2012 bid. I held him tightly and thought about the 7yo boy he would grow to be and how exciting it would be to take him to the Olympics.
I spent hours calculating which events we could go to, which we could afford, the timings that would be suitable etc etc. And nothing. We were especially sad not to get to see the Tae Kwan Do, as this is DS's sport.
I know this is really annoying, but it seemed perfectly clear to me when I was applying for tickets that all children, even tiny babies, would need their own ticket. At the time of making our application we had a baby of about 8 months. We applied for a variety of tickets, some for just DH and I and some for us plus DS - the ones where there was a pay your age facility for children. DS will turn 2 just before the games start. We have ended up with two sets of tickets for just DH and I and two sets where we're taking DS as well (not sure how that will work - at the time I had no idea what a 2 year old would be like!). Had we been planning to have another baby in the period between then and the Games I would have applied for an extra £1 ticket for those events. I wouldn't have applied for tickets for events with no pay your age tickets had I thought it likely I would have a tiny, exclusively breastfed baby.
Of course there are plenty of people who got tickets and have become pregnant between then and now either by accident, or perhaps had been trying for a while and didn't want to tempt fate by applying for a ticket for an as yet unconceived baby. But it really was very clear to me when I was applying for tickets that even the youngest of babies would need their own ticket.
Frustrated babies require a ticket on planes. They don't have to have a seat, but they have to be accounted for. And if too many tried to fly at once the airline would have to disappoint someone. But that never happens because a plane's nominal capacity is significantly beyond the number of seats it packs in (and also, I believe, set by weight not number of people).
I think the whole setup - from babes-in-arms being counted in licensing numbers, to the paltry number of pay-your-age tickets and the poor family facilities and accommodations, not to mention the way a significant number of people throw their arms up in horror at the idea a baby might cry in their hearing - is indicative of how unfamily-friendly the UK is. It's no wonder our kids are stressed and unhappy compared to other OECD countries. Our society doesn't want them until they've grown up and made money.
Why is it called Show Jumping anyway? It's the horse that jumps, not the show. "Horse Jumping" sounds much better
OP, YANBU to think it's a ridiculous policy on ticket prices.
Yes I think it's to do with how many 'souls' they have in a venue, health and safety and licensing probably. No idea really but I am also annoyed as I'm affected by this. My first baby is due on 18 July and I bought the tickets before knowing we'd start TTC. I have tickets to the tennis on 1 Aug and am GUTTED I won't be able to go. I think even if they had spare children's tickets I don't think I would chance it - it's a long trek to get there and I don't fancy frantically trying to settle a teeny tiny squawking baby in a hushed centre court.
Very sad about it, though. I live almost next to the new venues and would love to be a part of it. Looks like I'll give the tickets to my sister and just watch from the sofa.
'Locog said this was due to licensing and health and safety regulations.'
Rubbish. Tiny babies travel on planes without having to pay. It's a cynical money-making exercise. The whole thing with the Olympics is leaving such a nasty taste in the mouth. When London won it it was so exciting, especially for those of us living in East London (not so much fun the next day but still). But with attitudes like this, and the ticket-buying farce (no, I didn't get tickets either) it's becoming such an exclusive event.
Tiny babies actually don't travel on planes without paying. There's always some fee, although it can be quite small.
Agree that these Olympics seem a bit elitist and corporate, though. As if they were really designed mostly for well-off Conservative businessmen.
But they don't pay £95 though do they Tolalola.
Harsh! Babies quite clearly should be foc
A baby generally pays 10% of the adult fare to fly, plus any relevant taxes, fees and charges that have been appliend by the local authorities/airports etc. So often it would be a lot more that £95!!
Just seen on the BBC London local news that LOCOG will review ticketing for babies, in the light of protests from parents. That's you lot!
A (possibly wailing) newborn at a showjumping event? I don't think that's on at all.
Part of parenting is sometimes giving up things that you'd really like to do. Sadly .
It's sadly not unusual. A friend and I (with 2 toddlers and one 3 month baby) had a look at going to see Peppa Pig at a London theatre (I think it was the Criterion). I rang the box office about tickets and was told that the 3 month old, who couldn't even sit up at the time, would need her own seat! And another £20, kerching!
Thankfully I didn't get any Olympic tickets but when I applied I had to book 2 kids tickets, which were a pay your age thing, just in case I had another DC around by August 2012 (which I won't have).
We booked our tickets for the sailing on the south coast 9 months BEFORE WE CONCEIVED (nice surprise as pregnancy was unplanned) and although there is NO seating as the event is outdoors (perfect, we thought for a babe in a sling) we are expected to buy a full-price ticket for our probably 6 week old baby if we choose to try to use our tickets. Surely that is discrimination?! We haven't decided what to do, but it looks as though someone will have to use my ticket when I would happily have gone with baby.
This story is coming up on sky news now - trawling mumsnet for ideas no doubt
Just been mentioned on BBC Breakfast, good to see they're all on the ball ;-)
It's on BBC Breakfast right now, with Katie 'Mumsnet' fighting the corner of people who want to take in baby.
The Other Lady (missed who she is) said it's not fair to include babes in arms, as it dilutes the message and 'mumsnetters BF forever'....
The other woman was Katie Hopkins. Bloody awful woman....
Mumsnet spokesperson was pants! Not a single comeback for that poisonous woman off the apprentice!
Where on EARTH did they find that Katie Hopkins woman???? I was absolutely seething by the end of the report. What a selfish cow I cannot believe that she has three children of her own, poor kids.
If you had tickets for a music concert or a sell out West End show would you insist on taking your baby?
I can't imagine anything more hassly and stressful than taking a baby to something like The Olympics
I would sell my ticket or leave baby at home.
Katie Hopkins reminds me of those of a ridiculous far-right persuasion. disgraceful. No wonder the mumsnet woman was so flummoxed, everything she said made no sense. Obviously her debate tactics are purely to throw some ridiculous and pretty much unrelated notion at her opponent, over and over again until they give up, knowing having a reasoned discussion with such a person is pointless.
I think it was a happy accident that Katie MN's mic was off. It meant that Katie Hopkins could show what an utter twat she was.
She was incapable of putting her point across without going over the top and sounding like a drunken bore at a dinner party.
She was an incredibly rude, arrogant and dismissive woman. Not impressed.
Was impressed with Katie MN, though.
I thought Kate Hopkins was great to be honest. I don't want to be sitting next to a noisy baby while trying to enjoy the Olympics! There's always child care or babysitters - the child doesn't HAVE to go with you.
If they're breastfed they do! Ignorant comments
What Cyb said.
Katie Hopkins is an insufferable old cow but, really, of all the issues to get your collective knickers in a twist about...
I cannot imagine why anyone would want to take a baby to any sporting event, especially one sitting in a stadium with thousands of other people.
Hopkins is a hideous woman. I always make sure I avoid her on TV.
If they're breastfed the. Stay at home with the child an give the ticket to someone else or pay for a ticket for the baby. But as others have said too - an Olympic event isn't a great environment for a baby.
This thread has just backed up my increasing theory that the London Olympics is a complete waste of money and I can't wait until it's all over.
If you were in a huge amount of debt to the bank and some of your friends had lent you money and despite the fact you were scrimping and saving to get by, would you then decide to suddenly throw a HUGE party that was going to cost a fortune?
But Britain has.
I see on BBC Breakfast this morning they're going to discuss this very topic.
YANBU - babies of that age, in a sling tend tend to be very low maintenance, especially if you are BFing and happy to do so sitting in your seat.
the idea of having to pay £95 for a babe in arms is bonkers and I would have felt uncomfortable (literally - inagine the possible engorgement) leaving a baby of that age for that length of time. Also possible health risk to mother as for some mums (me amongst them) the missed feeds can result in mastitis unless you want to spend the whole event in the loos hand expessing.
Turkey, I am with you. A total joke.
I have a due date of June 1st - at most Tiny Wee will be 8 weeks old by the time the opening ceremony takes place, to which we have tickets. There is no way in hell there will be a spare one and certainly not at the price we paid! I will of course be calling the ticketing folk to confirm for myself what I have been told in the press but as cross as I am about it if it's true (and think it's a total crock!) I am more annoyed that my husband will now make us resell the tickets and thus be proven right as he didn't want us to take tiny wee in the first place!
I was really into the idea of the Olympics. I live in an Olympic Borough and thought Yeah! Great! Something positive for East London for a change.
That was 5 years ago. Even up until a year or so ago I was still a bit at all the moaners.
Now I am seeing resources taken from disabled people and terminally ill people. Calls for the poor to be punished for wanting to stay where they have lived all their lives, vital services being decimated ...... all in this Olympic borough.
Now with the Olympics, The Jubilee and the fucking royal sodding boat, I feel like we have slipped into weird universe where Ceaser
Cameron fiddles as Rome burns.
As for not taking babies.
What a load of toss.
Babies dont cause a lot of fuss or noise. They sleep, feed and poo most of the time.
The idea that one small baby would be disruptive over the noise of thousands of Coke slurping, burger munching, chatting adults is ridiculous.
And Katie, Katie, Katie - your attempt at a witty soundbite was somewhat pathetic.
I remember the old days when babies where just bloody babies. Leave them at home and give everyone peace. Or pay up.
Noddy - are you 80? interesting that when I typed Noddy, the spell check tried to change it to 'Biddy'
i wouldn't want to sit next to a squarking baby either after paying £££ to attend. sorry!
why have the BBC they rolled out Katie Hopkins for this debate - nonsense
becasue she provokes debate hence everyone posting on here
No I am 46 but the obsession with babies does my brain in! They don,t give a damn about the olympics and their parents can survive and probably enjoy a day without them. Otherwise pay. All the clutter prams mats nappies is inconvenient and takes up space so you should pay. Mind you I don,t like them in costa unless asleep or with a huge dummy
Sorry who is that thing on BBC Breakfast? (not Katie MN)
It looks quite deranged, head whipping side to side, goggle eyed.
What planet is it on?
breastfed or not, this isnt the sort of place to take a baby for a full day! You would NEVER get away with saying at a theatre, "I HAD to bring her cos she's breastfed."
Tiny babies are probably the exception to the rule, cos they really dont make much noise, but any baby over around 2 months needs entertained to some degree, and yes, probably will cry at some point, which is horrible for anyone sitting near them, who just wanted to watch some sport.
I am all in favour of a "baby area" where people with babies or young kids can sit without irritating others. But, tbh, I have no idea whose kids/babies would be happy for that length of time, doing nothing. It's not just the sitting around, it's the time spent travelling/queuing/waiting etc etc - that all comes hand in hand with an event like this.
OK, so it looks like they are reviewing the situation. I jolly well hope that only those people whose babies were not conceived at the time of them securing tickets are allowed to purchase extra child tickets and not just anyone who now decides they want to bring their 1 year old.
[yes, I'm bitter that I didn't get a single ticket in the first or second round]
The difference between the West End show and the music concert and the Olympics is that I have never had to decide to purchase show/concert tickets 18 months in advance.
So, if I want to go to a show, I know for sure if I am going to have a baby by that date or not. I either buy the ticket and make suitable arrangements, or I choose not to go. In the case of a newborn, it would probably mean choosing not to go.
It is a bit more difficult to predict if you are going to have a baby in 18 months time or not, given that they generally take 9 months to gestate.
Just watched Katie O'Donovan on BBC Breakfast. Although I was shouting "Let her speak" for most of the discussion I did manage to hear Katie defend her opinion really well! Let's all hope that we don't have to ever come across anyone with an attitude like the apprentice woman (I haven't bothered to remember her name) or even worse work for them. I loved Katie's parting comment too!
I am so glad I didn't buy tickets if it could now be spoilt by the noise and baggage of a baby in the next seat.
Odd TBH, your enjoyment is more likely to be interrupted by raucous older children than a newborn baby.
From reading this thread one would get the impression that all babies are carried in slings, and the parent only needs a couple of spare nappies and a muslin square tucked into their pocket. That seems a little different to what I observe, or what is posted on other threads on here about the need for spaces on buses for buggies (or buggies in coffee shops etc). In the whole spectrum of parenting there are some 2 month old babies who are carried everywhere and some that would always be in a buggy. There are some parents who take the minimum of 'stuff' for a young baby and others who take a car load. There are some young babies who sleep and gurgle and are contented, and others who are colic-y or unsettled who need to be walked around.
I don't see how the locog ticketing policy could take account of all of that without causing uproar in some section of the mn community.
And it only becomes more complicated as the babies become older - some 11 month old babies will be active walkers, most will be highly mobile and crawling, but some will still be relatively static. How should locog cover that variation in their ticketing policy?
So they have a clear statement - a ticket per person - and then leave it to the adult in charge of the baby to decide what the best approach is.
YANBU policy on ticket availability and ticket prices is ridiculous
Will be viewing on TV.
London Hotel cost, availability and transport cost will be a nightmare near any venus because we are useless at providing efficient public transport at peak times. I have travelled to the London ExCeL centre for business before for major events, bloody awful. ExCeL centre capacity in the four halls will range from 6,000 to 10,000 per hall. Nightmare.
If you are going to one of the other locations outside of London, I would think more realistic to take a family and baby and actually enjoy the whole day.
KatieMN - someone get her medal for not slapping KH.
Bonkers I dont think the Olympics is a place for young children OR babies, for various reasons. Especially show jumping, where noise has to be kept to a minimum.
"The difference between the West End show and the music concert and the Olympics is that I have never had to decide to purchase show/concert tickets 18 months in advance." Yep, I agree totally, BUT the baby doesnt have to go with you, whether you knew you were going to have one or not. As has been said before, one of the downsides of having kids is that you may just have to give up doing things you love, because you cant do them any more, OR do them without the kids.
Was that apprentice lady on BBC Breakfast seriously suggesting kids aged 6 will not remember any of it?! Yes, 3-month-old ones won't but 6-year-olds? Has she never been a child?
And another thing, most airlines do not offer discounted tickets to babes in arms but free tickets for which the TAX only is payable.
And yes, for some that might mean the disappointing decision that they cannot go to an event with their tiny baby.
Daily mail alert.
Look. You all made it into the papers.
Just googled Katie Hopkins, who said she has 3 kids and kept saying 'you mumsnet lot' etc. Didn't know who she was.
After finding this article, I'm not listening to a word she says. She's bonkers. lol
Spanish You are entitled to your opinion. I am inclined to agree for some events.
However, the issue here is that people had to buy tickets before they had even conceived.
Where should the organisers have drawn the line when it comes to allowing children in for free if they sit on their parents laps?
The Olympics are totally sold out for most events and the equestrian ones were the first to be sold. How are they suddenly going to magic up some childrens tickets? Many of the MNetters above are asking about the funding of the event - surely the fact that the tickets have sold well at high prices goes a long way to covering the costs and proving that it is not the white elephant that some doomsayers are predicting.
This was all well publicised at the time of the first ticket sales and there was actually an MN thread about it at the time. If children can't be left then maybe the parents do need to consider reselling their tickets.
My baby is due in April and me and DH have tickets to an athletics event. To be honest, as a first-time mum i have no idea how I'll feel, if I'll want to go still or how the baby will be at that age. But if i decide that he and we would manage without pissing too many other people off then I'd like to be able to make the choice to take him. I understand the need for him to have a ticket and am willing to pay a reasonable amount, bearing in mind that he won't take up a seat.
All the stuff about people not wanting to sit next to babies is, frankly, irrelevant bollocks, since children are allowed in anyway and 5-year-olds are easily as irritating as babies. I'm not expecting special treatment, and of course will leave the baby with a sitter if I decide that that is the best option for him and us. But i would like to be allowed to decide for myself.
Yes, babies take up more room than an adult, with buggies (which the normal public are meant to treat with the same reverence as a wheelchair, brush against it at your peril, those hormones are lethal!), huge sacks of unnecessary stuffed or slimey things to fall on the floor and I find all sporting events, especially ones requiring deep concentration and silence, such as shooting and archery, diving or gymnastics, are only improved by the constant and unpredictable risk of the worst noise known to man (they can't help it, it has been perfected over millions of years to be as unbearable as a jack-hammer in your head as a tool for manipulating its mother into stopping it with a packet of Wotsits if no one at your mother and baby group is watching or a very public, saggy, blue-veined mammary that really belongs in a bra, or at least the toilets, if there is. But then what to do with the portable house taking up 3 seats? Baby's First Kindle didn't come cheap. The younger the child, who will recall nothing of the day, ever, the more selfish you are being. You have 6 months to arrange child care, please, for the sake of those of us who have paid for tickets, don't bring under 12s, it's not fair. At least they might get another chance.
On the other hand, there must have been booking Terms on the tickets to cover any restrictions at the time of purchase. By making the purchase you'd have agreed to, via a tick box.
butkin No one's suggesting 8-year-olds should get in free if they sit in parents laps... But perhaps they could print some tickets (not find seats) for babies who weren't concieved when tickets went on sale? Or say, babies under 1 year old. It's not that complicated really is it?!
Under 6 months seems a sensible cut off for tickets, or whatever age means their conception couldn't have been known about. Highly unlikely an under 6 month old would need a seat, and whilst not all babies are carried in slings all the time most parents going to this sort of event will think of sensible options, of which the sling is the main one.
I have no objection to the concept of paying for a ticket, but not full adult price. If theatres etc can manage it why can't the Olympics?
Katie Hopkins = aggressive anti-feminist bully. If her viewpoint isn't offensive enough, her manner certainly is. She looked as though she wanted to jump on MN Katie on the Breakfast show & sink her teeth into her neck - she barely gave her space to sit on the couch. Congrats to MN Katie for keeping her cool & putting forward a more compelling argument.
I imagine it must be annoying for parents who bought the tickets before they conceived the babies ... but it is equally annoying for other adults (many who will be parents too) to have to sit next to a baby. Sure some will be quiet and no hassle, but you don't know that. There will be some events where the competitors will be trying to concentrate and a crying baby will be a real distraction ... gymnastics, diving, show jumping for example.
I don't think the Olympics is the right place for a baby. I think as a parent you should be considerate to people around you and your surroundings ...
bonkers a newborn maybe but once a baby gets to a couple of months old and starts being aware then they are much more difficult to keep quiet.
I only have the experience of my own children but I have taken them to church each week from birth so I know what it is to try to keep them occupied while others are focussing. From about 2-3 months until about 2 1/2 years I would need to take them out at least once in an hour long service in order to prevent them causing disruption (not because I was ever asked to but because it was the right thing for both the other adults and for my child).
What was the policy at previous Olympics? Surely this can't be the first time this has cropped up. As for some of the arguments against:
1-babies aren't the only ones with luggage. My DP takes a rucksack everywhere he goes and a cooler bag for drinks and food, cameras, etc...
2-noise - really? adults aren't loud, don't make any noise??? This is a sporting event for crying out loud (excuse the pun). I find the boring know-it-alls who talk non-stop more annoying than babies. Realistically, how many people will be bringing their babies, it wouldn't be very many.
oddboots and maiakins, surely the issue of whether babies should be allowed at the event is kind of irrelevant? Fact is, if the tickets were on sale now, rather than 15 months ago, i would be buying my child a ticket. It's up to me as to whether i use it when the time comes.
I just heard the end of the discussion this morning at 08:45 on 5 live. I Am very interested in this issue, as I was thrilled to get olypics tickets. I was also thrilled to later become pregnet. A shaddow fell over this when I discovered all people no matter what age requied an olympics ticket.
The key point, as some have already mentioned, is that to get an excellent value, pay your age ticket for the new baby, or indeed any priced ticket, I would have had to bid for a ticket for a child that wasn't even conceived.
The comparissons some people are making to other events and concerts are irrelevant. Its the fact that tickets were applied for over a year before the event, when these expected babies were not even concieved. You wouldn't go and buy a cot before you fell pregnant, so why on earth would you buy an extra ticket.
I respect that some people would not want to take a baby to the event. That is an individual choice. I am travelling down from Scotland to attend the olymics, so sorting out child care would not be very easy. I have breast fed my other 2 children with ease and found that 3 months old was a very easy age to just take along. I don't know about my new baby yet, but would like to have the opportunity to reduce my stress and increase my olymic enjoyment by being allowed to bringing a baby along in a sling, and continue with demand breast feeding.
kate Good luck obtaining a ticket for your new baby.
This debate was featured on the news today www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16707993
I really hope they relent. I am due mid-July and have got much-coveted tickets for the Equestrian Eventing on 31st July (ie. my baby, which was not conceived when we bought tickets, will be around 3wks old and fully breastfeeding). We have family tickets (I have 2 DSs already) and the event is an outdoors one with no seating, in Greenwich Park, so we will not be disturbing the enjoyment of any other ticket-holders by attending with a baby.
I feel INCREDIBLY strongly that babes-in-arms, especially those who were not even conceived at the time of the ticket application (which is pretty easy to prove ), and especially those who are requiring breastfeeding, MUST be allowed to accompany their families.
It is not even a matter of ticket price for us - this event is a pay your age so I guess that would mean £1 for the newborn as that's the minimum price (who technically is aged 0 = £0...go figure). It is a matter of the event (as with everything else other that the footy as far as I can make out) being massively popular and we would have a cat in hell's chance of getting a ticket for our little 3 week old.
We would take a double buggy to the event anyway so having the baby will take up no more space than we would be doing anyway as a family.
IF ANY "POWER THAT BE" MIGHT READ THIS, *PLEASE CHANGE YOUR POLICY* AND IF ANY JOURNALIST IS READING AND WANTS A CASE STUDY, CONTACT ME!!
I am so glad that something may finally be done about this.
My sister and I both fell pregnant after getting tickets for the Olympics, where we will hopefully be watching our brother compete as part of the GB water polo squad (injuries permitting etc).
Of course we want to watch our brother compete in a once in a lifetime event and the childcare isn't really an option given how young they will be, so unless this is revised it looks like our husbands may have to miss out and take it in turns to wait at the hotel!
I have had similar responses from Olympic ticketing in that we will have to bid again to buy additional tickets for the babies - they will be on our knees and don't even need an extra seat!!!!!
For me this is about breast feeding.
Breast feeding on demand is known to be that healthiest thing for babies under 6 months. That is why we want to take have the option to take these babies in to olympic events. If they were wheaned or bottle fed, it could well be that the best option is not to have them with us. Until we have these babies we do not know for definate how they will feed.
The times we will have to allow for travelling and airport style security checks, will be far to long for leaving a young purely breast fed baby.
Surely it's not such a good idea to take a young baby (the babe in arms who apparently rarely cries) to a packed sporting stadium or arena, with people squeezing through turnstiles and pushing through narrow spaces. Personally, I'd find the whole experience stressful for me and the child.
Maiakins on that basis I'd never take a baby on the tube either
I never liked to take my babies on the tube in the peak of the rush hour when everyone was squeezing into the carriage. Do you? I'm sure it is sometimes unavoidable, but I would do anything to avoid those times as it wasn't nice for me, my babies or the other passengers. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices.
I can see why they aren't for encouraging crying babies into sports events where concentration is needed... Perhaps this policy is to put off people from bringing the babies unless absolutely necessary?
Maiakins, if I have to be somewhere and it doesn't matter what time, then I'd avoid the rush hour....I'd do that without a baby too. If I need to travel in busy times I travel in busy times. I've never been on a tube so busy it was a danger to a baby in a sling.
I can't think of anything worse than settling down to watch the Olympics (a once in a lifetime oppertunity, and one so many people have put a lot of effort into getting tickets for) and having to sit next to a screaming baby.
You are seriously telling me that you don't know a single person who can babysit for one day? You are seriously complaining that you want free tickets as well for your baby?
Stop being so selfish!
civil rights group Liberty (Emma Norton, legal officer) Perhaps its time the 2012 organisers decided whether they want London to host the Freedom Games or stand accused of putting greed above decency.
Turning away babes in arms is a first class ticket to alienated parents and embarrassing litigation.
Liberty will be the first to throw some toys out of the pram and any mother affected should contact us for help.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission A business must not do something which has a worse impact on you and on other people who share a particular protected characteristic, such as gender, than it has on people who do not share that characteristic.
Unless the business can show that what they have done is objectively justified, this will be what is called indirect discrimination.
It could be argued that women are more likely to have child caring responsibilities and thus this policy might have more of an impact for women, but as stated above the business might be able to justify this potential discrimination.
Excellent that Liberty are getting involved
RobSmith, babies don't scream all the time you know. Most parents with a screaming baby will run away from other people in public highly embarrassed. A tiny breastfed baby will spend most of its time sleeping, or breastfeeding (something you won't notice by the way, I promise, because you'll be watching the olympics and the vast majority of breastfeeding mothers do so discreetly and without fuss). A small breastfed baby cannot be left with a babysitter. The fuss is about tiny babies who cannot be left with a babysitter and will not inconvenience anyone if they attend. It is usually not possible to leave a breastfed baby much under 3 months, and many can't leave them for longer than that. I wouldn't bring a baby who was crawling age because they wouldn't sit on my lap. Any immobile baby isn't going to be noticed. I would remove them if they became upset and started crying. Most parents do the same would be because they are reasonable human beings. I have a walking 1 year old and although I purchased a ticket for her I will be getting a babysitter because she'll be a bloody nuisance and she's old enough to be left.
RobSmith, what an utterly ridiculous generalisation. "Screaming baby"? How do you know that the OP's baby will be screaming throughout the event?
Firstly, not all babies scream all the time. Many of them don't. Secondly, babies in slings (and, even more so, very young babies like the 3-month old) very rarely cry, let alone scream, because they are so blissed out having much-desired cuddles with their beloved parent. Most likely the child will sleep for several hours at a stretch, as mine did at that age, and will miss the whole event. If he/ she wakes then the OP can breastfeed them and get them straight back to sleep again. As people used to say to me when mine were newborns, most spectators won't even know there's a baby there.
£95 for a baby is blimmin' ridiculous. Nobody should have to pay any entry charge for a baby. I get angry with airlines who charge for babes-in-arms for the same reason - if all they're using is a small amount of the air on the flight, why should parents have to pay for that? There is so much about the London Olympics that is a total joke (the website problems and the *spectacularly *atrocious mascot designs for starters). They are not instilling confidence in their ability to do a good job of running the show are they?
Oh by the way, if anyone has tickets for the morning session of athletics on Friday 3 August I have a child ticket going spare for a baby. (fingers crossed they'll be sitting next to RobSmith).
LatetotheAprilparty says it "is not that complicated" to make a change of policy but she doesn't really answer my question of what age she thinks the cut off point should be. She mentions free entry to babies of less than a year, others mention less than 6 months.
As the terms and conditions state that everybody should have a ticket for a seat at what age do you think the organisers should now set a guideline for babies that won't require a seat?
Babies don't scream all the time true, but all babies scream sometimes and I would be absolutely furious if my visit to the olympics was spoiled by a parent selfish enough to bring a baby along. You cannot tell me that any baby will make absolutely no noise for 2+ hours at a public event!
Can anyone seriously tell me that they won't be able to organise a babysitter (given they have 6 months notice)!
I still say that anyone even considering taking a baby along is selfish. What is the point of bringing a baby along anyway? What will the baby remember?
the rest of the public won't be sitting in silence at a lot of events either. The other spectators are likely to make more noise than a baby. Granted, it wouldn't be appropriate on the centre court of Wimbledon or similar events, but I don't see how a baby noise can be more disruptive to an event than the noise of lots of adults.
It's not just about organising a babysitter. As has been said above, if the baby is under a certain age, it would not be possible to leave them all day with someone else.
The point of bringing the baby along is that the Olympics in London is a once in a lifetime event and although the baby won't remember it, its parents will. It is unfair to exclude the mother from the event because she needs to have the baby with her so she can feed it.
RobSmith - the parents will take the baby out if it gets distressed. No-one likes to have a screaming baby least of all the parents. Tiny babies do not make much noise and it is perfectly possible for them to sleep through it, or breastfeed for a half day with absolutely no screaming . A whingy toddler or small child is far more likely to disturb you I promise, and there ARE going to be children at these events so I am afraid be prepared to be angry.
You cant leave a small breastfed baby with a babysitter - it's not about availability of babysitting. Breastfed babies need breastfeeding and it is often not possible to express for several months and many won't take expressed milk at all. I wish you would read the responses you have had already, and indeed the thread.
I can still remember having to beat a hasty retreat from a crowded restaurant with a wailing two-and-a-half month old (my first). Babies do cry at inopportune moments. I learned quite quickly that you can't always take baby with you, as much as you'd like; it's just not fair to other patrons who've paid a heck of a lot of money for tickets, a nice restaurant meal or what-have-you. It's just COMMON SENSE.
But then you leave Popbiscuit - yes? Many babies will sleep through it/breastfeed, if they don't the parents can take turns taking the baby out of the venue / sitting outside the toilets. Yes the parents won't have such a good time but they can't just say, oh well we'll go to the Olympics next year.
Yes, popbiscuit ... and consideration.
I wish Liberty would not refer to all parents and all mothers as if they had an equal perspective and were some kind of homogeneous group. As this thread shows, there are many parents and mothers who agree with the 2012 organisers. It is not new parents' right to get free tickets or even to get spaces freed up for them (even at a large cost) .... there are many of us who would have liked and still would like Olympic tickets for us and our family, but didn't get them.
Katie Hopkins is a bad role model as a mother of three. I feel sorry for her children. Her attitude towards breast-feeding women being able to enjoy the olympics is stuck in the dark ages, and something I would have expected from Thatcher.
Her comments about mumsnetters breastfeeding until children are eight years old- was just her trying to be controversial.
Personally I wouldn't want to take my baby to the Olympics. Imagine a baby being stuck in a 40 degrees tube train in a tunnel for half an hour or hours of traffic- it's horrible enough experience if you're an adult.
However those that do should be allowed to for £1, covers insurance etc.
I agree the Olympics are no place for a small baby, the travelling, the pushing, the noise etc. Are people trying to make a point here. And I wouldnt want to sit next to someone with a baby, with all the stuff they bring, sat next to a woman last year on a long haul flight with a young child and she had so much with her I couldnt get a wink of sleep. Baby wasnt too happy either. Realistically I dont see anyone rushing to site next to a young baby on flights - would you if you had a choice.....
No, mt choice would be not to sit next to a child of any age on a long haul flight. I was lucky on one to South Africa last year when a little boy (5? 6?) sat bnetween his parents and I had the mother next to me. He was a delight and I was so surprised. I do this trip fairly often and have, in the past, had crying babies next to me or toddlers running up and down the aisles, getting in the way of everyone. Apart from those examples, I've had a 13 year old sitting behind me overnight with its feet pummelling on the back of my seat. The parent said nothing so I turned round myself ands barked, desperate for some sleep.
Freedom Games? What where you needed a Visa card to even apply for tickets in the first place......
Rob, you are very funny!
"You cannot tell me that any baby will make absolutely no noise for 2+ hours at a public event!" Er, yes I can. I already did in my first post to you, and provided factual evidence to support what I said.
"What is the point of bringing a baby along anyway?" That's like saying what's the point of taking your baby anywhere with you. What a bizarre question!
This is not meant to sound sarcastic at all: do you have children? It's just that with your assumptions about babies all screaming, and your line of questioning about why parents would want to take babies to an event, you sound like the people I know who have limited experience of babies. Those people tend to have that sadly all-too-common attitude that 'children should be seen and not heard...or better yet, not seen at all'. It's usually not until they start having children themselves that they understand this stuff better. Anyway your posts remind me of those people.
Can we please stop pushing the argument that the most important reason babies should be permitted into Olympic events is the possibility that they require constant breast feeding?
Let's not pretend that formula fed babies are independent creatures who don't need their mothers - or that FFing mothers would necessarily be more comfortable leaving their babies with a carer whilst they attend the Olympics.
BF mothers are not 1st class citizens and FF mothers 3rd class. They are equal and their rights should be.
The Olympics should be family friendly and under 2's allowed without a ticket.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I was just talking to a guy on the ticket hotline. He said there would be tickets available in mid april & they are currently looking into making a lot of child tickets available as well, so I guees we have to see what happens.
For what its worth, we have tickets for the sailing - a venue chosen because we felt it would be easier/more enjoyable for us and 2 young children than a long journey to London, underground, seating etc. That doesn't mean I think people with young children or babies should be banned - that frankly is ridiculous - everybody is free to choose for themselves.
We are expecting DC3 shortly (conceived after we bid for tickets) and from previous experience the baby will be fully breastfed when we are due to go to the olympics. I can't express (mastitis issues) and at that stage will not be able to be separated from the baby for more than 2-3 hours. The only people who would be able to provide this sort of cover for us are my parents - who are volunteering in London for some sort of sport event at that time. If the baby can't go, I can't go and it is likely that the rest of my family will similarly not go. No-one can tell us if there will be tickets available or at what price, so basically it feels as though we have no option at the moment other than to sell the tickets.
For those who complain about excessive baby baggage - its been mentioned upthread that buggies etc won't be allowed in some venues so am not sure what the problem is here. And those who complain about the noise - have you ever been to a major sport event? Do you have any appreciation of the general noise levels or how that noise is swallowed up in a large stadium or the open air? Am not sure I would want to be next to a rowdy group of teenagers or noisy, chatty, people eating constrantly - but then am not intolerant enough to think they should be banned or small minded enough to judge people in that way.
Rant over. Breathe..........
BlackSwan, I don't think anyone has cast judgement on ff parents. The fact this that a baby who is EBF, not even using bottles of expressed milk, cannot survive without their mother being available for regular feeds. A baby who is fed with bottles, whether formula or breastmilk-fed, can.
As for the people saying the OP should just get a babysitter, that might be your choice but it's not everybody's. If, for example, the OP has no family alive or available to care for the child, it would mean relying on someone outside the family. At that age some parents prefer to do the caring themselves, and why shouldn't they?
I wouldn't want to leave my 3-month-old in someone else's care for a whole day - and it would basically be a whole day, wouldn't it? I'm not convinced that I'd want to take a baby to the Olympics, either, because of all the hassle involved. But, from experience, I'd say it would be far easier to go with a 3 month old than a toddler/ 5 year old.
Sorry BlackSwan. Of course a young baby, regardless of how it is fed, should be with its mother. It wasn't meant to suggest that BF babies are superior to FF babies or that only BF babies should be allowed in.
"Am not sure I would want to be next to a rowdy group of teenagers or noisy, chatty, people eating constrantly - but then am not intolerant enough to think they should be banned or small minded enough to judge people in that way."
Hear, hear, tilder!
Some people do tend to pay too much attention to their imaginations and then end up getting their knickers in a twist over nothing, don't they!
Just to reiterate the point about buggies - they're not allowed in the seating area at any of the venues although there will be a storage area at most venues - check the website.
I also noticed that someone up-thread was talking about taking food, drink and bags of baby paraphanalia into the venue - according to the website:
The following is a non-exhaustive list of restricted items which may not be taken into a Venue (LOCOG reserves the right to amend this list, generally, or in respect of any Venue or Session): food (save for baby food), alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (save for baby milk and other valid medical reasons), liquids in containers of greater than 100ml in size, needles (save as required for valid medical reasons), animals (save for assistance or guide dogs), weapons (including knives), illegal drugs, other illegal substances, fireworks, firecrackers, poles, flagpoles, sticks, large photographic equipment (including tripods), bats, large umbrellas and other blunt instruments, motorcycles, bicycles, roller-skates, skateboards, or other types of skates, electronic transmitting equipment, flags of countries not participating in the Games, large flags or banners, horns, whistles, drums, rattles, musical instruments, lasers or any other devices that in the opinion of LOCOG may disturb a Session, objects bearing trademarks or other kinds of promotional signs or messages (such as hats, T-shirts, bags, etc) which LOCOG believes are for promotional purposes, counterfeit products, balls, rackets, frisbees or similar objects, large quantities of coins, lighters, advertising or promotional material of any kind, printed matter bearing religious, political or offensive content or content contrary to public order and/or morality, bottles or containers made of glass or other material, flasks, thermoses, refrigerators, large objects such as suitcases or bags, and in general any material that LOCOG may deem dangerous or that may cause damage or disruption to a Session.
Amazing that elsewhere on AIBU a mother is being advised that attending a wedding with a babe in arms will be hell on earth (yes I'm aware that much of the advice concerns her C section but a lot of it also mentions how difficult small babies can be) and yet all of the babies mentioned above are silent and won't cause a second of fuss.
Just been on World at One - Radio 4. Probably on iplayer later.
Did anyone see that awful woman on bbc breakfast this morning talking about babies at the olympics. She made me so angry I actually swore at the tv infront of my kids.
All of the advice on that thread concerns the health of a woman travelling SIX hours just ten days after major abdominal surgery. None of that thread is anything about the baby being disruptive. Simply that it is difficult to take care of a ten day old baby and attend a wedding. The two threads are totally unrelated. I would also not expect anyone would advise a woman to attend the olympic games with a ten day old baby. It's quite different if the baby is 3 months old though.
And where will they take their babies when they start crying? They will be jammed in and short of getting everyone to stand up (hopefully not during the 100m metres final) how will they get out! Just leave them at home and let everyone enjoy the day
But you could say that about toddlers surely? The only difference is that the toddlers were already born/conceived when the tickets went on sale, there was nothing to stop parents buying tickets for 2-3 year olds. Toddlers of that age could arguably be more annoying as they have a tendency to sleep a lot less than a newborn baby and they can walk and talk.
This thread was originally about people who had bought tickets for themselves when there wasn't even a baby on the way at that time. So it will mostly involve babies of six months or less. It isn't possible to just leave them at home. So if the baby can't go then the mother can't go.
The argument is not that babies are annoying and shouldn't be allowed at the olympics. Babies are quite clearly allowed at the olympics if a ticket has been purchased for them. A woman could have bought a ticket for a new baby "just in case" she got pregnant (although few people would actually do this I imagine) and that baby would be allowed into the event. Regardless of how annoying the people nearby would find it.
Since babies are allowed, it wouldn't be difficult for the ticket authorities to also allow these extra babies who don't have a ticket because they were not yet conceived.
I would never of taken my newborn to the olympics. If you all put your babies before yourselves then you wouldnt dream of taking them. It will be crowded, busy and very stressful for everyone. Why not stay at home and watch it on TV.
The "you selfish PFBs, why don't you leave your baby at home" people have utterly missed the point, of course.
It is nothing to do with noise, is it? They don't suddenly stop making noise at 3. And children quite manifestly are allowed, so it is clear that the organisers are not following an anti-child agenda designed to pander to your delicate ears. It is just the fact that this is the latest in a long string of brain-achingly ridiculous cock-ups, this time involving the ticketing system not taking account of people who didn't exist when the tickets were first sold.
So saying "leave them at home otherwise you might upset me and all the other thousands of people (children included) who will be sitting together in silent awe in a stadium" (erm, yes - have these people ever watched any sport before, I wonder?) are just being ridiculous and irrelevant.
Yes! I was the same. My DS is only 8 months, but he got to hear all about what an ignorant, ill informed witch she was. It is hard enough for mums to feel confident about bfing in public without the likes of her spouting off about not wanting someone getting their mammaries out in front of her. And of course an eight week old is going to be more manageble in terms of noise and disruption than a toddler. She is clearly one of these idiots that think shouting over the top of someone means she is cleverer than them.
Sorry to rant. I have been bottling this up all day.
As to the Olympic tickets, I don't see why they can't charge £10-£20 for babies to be kept on their parents lap like they do on airlines.
Great disguise Hopkins
<yearns for a flipping the bird emoticon>
I am with the camp of leaving baby away.
Love kids and babies but wouldn't want an event ruined by screaming babies.
And would be worried about noise and crowds and general chaos. Noise levels alone with small babies would be a concern, crowds clap and cheer etc!
Sorry but think they have got it right on this one!
I agree xmyboys. I think alot of this is about the selfish mums who don't really think about how stressful it will be for babies.
It's more of a "we're mums we have a right" rather than them really wanting to take them!
But they haven't banned babies!! If the parents could get their hands on tickets they could still pay £95 to take these babies with them and then they could still scream all day long or whatever and annoy others. This is nothing to do with whether or not babies are annoying. The issue is whether they should have to pay £95 for a full priced ticket when they are not occupying a seat.
I don't think this is a 'we're mums, we've got a right' attitude. It's about people who bid for their tickets like everyone else, were lucky enough to get them, have paid for them, and now, because of different circumstances, find themselves potentially paying £95 extra or leaving their baby at home (not always easy to find a babysitter actually,especially for one that's a few weeks old) or missing it all together.
The bizarre thing is, it seems that the £95 is to pay for a seat, not a ticket. Today they were saying that they can't guarantee that the seats would be together. But babies don't need a seat! So potentially there will be all these empty seats dotted about the stadium that could have gone to actual grown-ups or children who could sit in them!
Well I'm afraid that I find myself disagreeing with many here. Tickets are so oversubscribed that only children old enough to remember the experience and paying full price ought to be allowed seats in my view! The Olympics here is a once in a lifetime experience so bf just get a pump and express - I did this with both of mine as they started day nursery FT at 5 months when I went back to work. I fed them for 10 and 8 months respectively like this and the breast pump was loaned to me by a work colleague and I bought one myself and lnow oan that! Where there's a will there's a way! ( I would not risk a baby in that environment as it could well be the melting pot for the long expected viral pandemic...I'm sure the tv coverage will be excellent!)
God it really is frustrating reading all the comments about not wanting to be disrupted by children's noise - how long will it take for the penny to drop that many people have already bought tickets for young children for Olympic events? And what will you do when you find yourselves surrounded by sticky fingered yelling two year olds at your chosen event? Storm out? Demand your money back? As I said a long way up thread the Olympics is an inclusive event to which ALL are invited, children almost more than anyone because of the LEGACY the games is supposed to leave us with. That is why schools in London have been allocated tickets to distribute among pupils. It's not fucking Ronnie Scott's.
Re plane tickets for babies - I would be more than happy to pay a charge to bring a baby, and hold a ticket for them to guarantee their entry, in fact I'd expect to. My problem is that babies have be allocated a seat, in which they obviously won't sit, meaning they can't attend already sold-out events (unless they 'sit' in a different area from their parents. Umm...)
This thread is in today's Guardian with quotes.
Katie Hopkins is professionally insane.
I have mixed feelings about this, we have tickets to the marathon and show jumping final and will have a lo who will be a few weeks old by then. Obviously no tickets for him/her who wasn't even conceived when we bought the tickets. I really really don't want to miss the opportunity to see the events on home turf but is it too much to take a tiny baby to something like this? I'm a FTM and no idea what I will feel like or what's achievable tbh. I would hate to sit next to a screaming baby but aren't the Olympics meant to be the ultimate family event?
I agree with the Olympic organizers. I don't think everyone in society wants to watch women breastfeed, and it is their right not to be surrounded by breastfeeding women. PLUS, no one wants to go to olympic games only to listen to crying babies. I think there are too many women in society who think that becoming a mother is a license to be rude, and inconsiderate of the feelings and needs of others, and they use the "baby" as an excuse for such behaviour. I too am a mother but I want my children to see the best possible example of respect and kindness for others, and I accept that not everyone in society cares as much about my kids as I do, therefore I cannot makes demands of others or expect special accomodations just because "I CHOSE" to become a mother. That was my choice, and it does not entitle me to privileges in life, anymore than it does women who remain childfree. Just my two cents.
Mink, the Olympic organisers aren't saying they don't want babies at the Olympics at all, and they aren't preventing breastfeeding. They just want additional ticket money for newborns who might not even have been conceived when their parents bught their own tickets, and who won't require actual seating.
Oh and all4u having breastfed my first child I am experienced enough to know that expressing for my (to be) 2 month old baby is not going to work, at an age when feeding on demand is the only way to establish a decent milk supply.
Also, about children who already hold 'pay your age' tickets, which were introduced to encourage children to attend, because of the Olympics' intended legacy, which helped to win the bid in the first place. Do you propose they are stripped of their tickets so a more deserving adult can attend?
How do you feel about people buying tickets for their tiny babies (which I will be doing for the events I have tickets for that are not sold out) and the seats allocated to those babies sitting empty while a well deserving adult has to watch at home?
This was just on BBC London News! I'm sitting here wondering if any of the people they interviewed are MN'ers.
I love the idea that MN can get things changed and stuff done.
Yeah I'm glad this is getting coverage but I do hope that the media don't read this thread and take from it that this issue is about militant breastfeeders who do not want to pay their children's way.
For me talk of whether or not children should be allowed to attend, whether it is irresponsible to bring them, even whether you should be allowed to breastfeed in public (??!!) just confuse the issue.
Personally I am happy to pay a charge in return for my tiny baby to be allowed to sit on my lap. I don't intend to block the aisle with a pram and a changebag. I just want to be able to attend the events I have tickets for.
Here's the thing: let's say you take your baby along and it does cry and destroys our only British chance of a gold medal in XYZ sport? What are you going to do about it? Sure you could remove the baby as soon as it starts fussing, disturbing all the other people in the row as you go past them cutting off their view because you brought a baby, then trying to find somewhere quiet to sit and settle the baby... It doesn't sound much like fun for anyone.
Secondly, sure, other people make noise and disturb people - but if you asked a rowdy group of teenagers to remove themselves or shut up, no one would blink an eye. Do that to a mother and the Mumsnet Mafia mobilises (a precisely demonstrated here) and gets up in arms and demands special treatment, regardless of whether or not they are disturbing other patrons enjoyment of the event.
Northerngirl41 - excellent point well made about the rowdy teenagers. If someone makes a complaint about a child making noise you'd be demonised for it.
Yes, I am sure that the sound a newborn baby crying in a huge crowded cheering stadium will destroy British sport as we know it, forever.
I couldn't find any pay your age tickets for the swimming. We paid for 4 full price tickets, which includes full price for the DCs who will be nearly 4.5 at show time. Somehow I don't think the swimmers on the blocks would hear them at the start but a pool is a noisy place luckily.
Great British excuses for not winning gold in cycling, swimming, the 100m relay, yachting, rowing, the marathon:
'...and then against the backdrop of the mighty roar of the crowd and the thundering of the ocean swell, I heard the distant wail of a tiny baby, and my morale completely collapsed.'
northerngirl and if a one year old child who currently holds a ticket bought legitimately in the first round of ticket sales did the same couldn't the athlete sue the Olympics organisers for selling the ticket in the first place? Because, you know, babies ARE ACTUALLY ALLOWED AT THE OLYMPICS.
I mean I'm sorry for 'shouting' but please, read the thread. Whether babies make noise is NOT THE POINT. it's whether they should have to have a physical SEAT. not a ticket, a SEAT.
JFC, I can't take any more, it's no good for my blood pressure.
Hopkins was hilarious she wiped floor with mn Kate
Katie Hopkins knows how to work a situation,and she's the one we are talking about - not the umming anaahhing Kate mn
And I think if seat booked and child capable if sitting with paying adult,not taking up a seat, then the child should accompany adult admitted on primary adult ticket
having had two children myself I wonder if you have considered whether it is a good thing for a relatively tiny infant to be kept in a hot sling, on a potentially sweltering day, with thousands of loudly cheering spectators on either side? This is after all the queueing to get in through massive crowds. What if your baby needs to be changed during a crucial build up to a round? Youd be stepping over the other fans to get out - subjecting them to a loudly crying infant with a smelly nappy which is not the best scenario for others to hear and enjoy the olympic experience for which they have also paid and taken time off from work to attend. Also if you can afford 2 x £95 for your tickets in the first place, wouldnt it be kinder to your baby and other spectators to express and hire a good quality babysitter whilst you go? Sometimes the joy of having kids demands the odd personal sacrifice for the good of the baby and other members of the public!
I disagree - she came across as a contemptuous baby hating bitch. She didn't wipe the floor so much as spit all over it.
JFC, this is about whether a seat should be paid for that a newborn baby will not actually sit in.
The Olympic organisers are keen to attract families, children and babies to the events anyway.
Yes they are allowed - but they aren't allowed free tickets which will make the parents who have to pay for full price tickets think very carefully about whether the child really needs to be there. It's a fair compromise.
The other objection is that tickets might not even be available for babies whose existence was not known about when the tickets first went on sale.
My kids are my sun, moon & stars but at 6 & 3 I would not expect them to sit quietly through a stadium event. Therefore I have not wasted money on tickets for them, instead me & my DH will actually get to enjoy our unique opportunity to see the best athletics in the world on our doorstep rather than stressing about keeping our DSs happy. I know it's not the same as taking a tiny baby but really you know what? It is not actually possible to have everything. There is no way I would have subjected my children to a big sporting event when they were babies - we would all have had a rubbish time, I did not begrudge that & now a few years later my time has come back.
I can't really believe this debacle.
Q. Are babies allowed to the Olympics
Q. How do you get a baby to the Olympics that wasn't conceived at the time of successful ticket allocation?
A. Pay full price for a seat, even though said baby won't physically be able to sit up unaided, nor will the seat be next to the parent's
Yes there should be some sort of threshold, 6 months seems the bare minimum, possibly a year. Why can't there be sensible debate on this quite laughable state of affairs.
The BBC wheeling KH out, who is only interested in self-promotion & daft arguments, detracts from the serious point raised.
Getting into whether it is right for a parent to choose to take a young baby to an Olympic is besides the point and frankly no-ones business but the parents.
I'm watching 'Twenty Twelve' again on re-run, and frankly I don't think even the writers on that could have dreamt this up.
Airlines manage to allow babes in arms, with an age limit (no bf-ing 8 yr olds sneaking in there) and a ticket, why can't the Olympics.
Well, we're going to five events (thanks Mum!). Kids are 5 & 3.
I am so hoping we're sitting near Hopkins. I will encourage bogey wiping and general whinging if we are (otherwise they'll be on best behaviour and marched out, I won't have them annoying nice people).
I really hope they reconsider their current policy.
I was lucky enough to get family tickets (pay your age for my 4 year old and 1 year old) to go to the early rounds of the tennis at the end of July.
Months after applying for the tickets I conceived and I am due at the end of June.
Baby will be 4 weeks old when we go to the Olympics. I rang the ticketing line to ask about their policy and when I might be able to buy an extra ticket for the baby (assuming it would be like an airline and you could add a babe on lap ticket).
Not only was I told what was on the website. I was also told that if I was lucky enough to get an extra ticket, they would not be able to guarantee that this ticket would be seated with the rest of the family! So, I would be expected to dump my 4 week old baby on a seat in a completely different part of the court to where the rest of us are sitting?
My 4 year old is incredibly excited about the prospect of going to the Olympics and he would be really upset if we couldn't all go because of this policy.
This will be my 3rd child and I know that at the age of just a few weeks, baby will cause hardly any disruption because all it will want to do is feed and sleep. Any crying will be quickly appeased through the offer of a breast.
At the moment, I am hoping that either LOCOG change their policy or I will have to hope that I am lucky enough to get another ticket for the baby and pray that they will see sense and actually seat us together!
I am also happy to speak further on this subject or be used as a case study.
I don't have an issue with paying for an extra ticket - but I am fuming about the uncertainty and the way mothers who have conceived after applying for tickets have been treated.
There can't be 'that' many of us to make it inconceivable (excuse the pun) that they can sort something out for the babes in arms who were not even in existence when the ticketing application process took place.
I agree with oltob that Twenty Twelve couldn't have made this up.
Seating newborn babies apart from the mother. Priceless.
I think any child not old enough to enjoy the event should be banned. What's the point? They are just going to be bored and annoy everybody around them with their screaming and whining and possibly distract the athletes with their wails. Selfish parent's should not be allowed to destroy everybody else's enjoyment or cost an athlete a hard earned medal
People don't hate children, they hate the self obsessed moronic breed of parents who think it hilarious to inflict their badly behaved brats on everybody else. Share the misery and all that.
If you can't or are unwilling to find a babysitter, stay at home or find something to do that your baby will actually enjoy and doesn't ruin everybody else's experience. It's called consideration. Consideration for your baby who won't want to be there. Consideration for other people who have saved, made arrangements for their own, traveled, paid for a hotel and are looking forward to having a good time and don't deserve to endure screaming babies, shitty nappies and the negligent parents who ignore them.
I know that's to much for egocentric parents who imagine the world cruel to even contemplate not revolving around them to understand but nobody cares.
I think one way around it would be a special area reserved for those who insist on dragging their babies along, they can disturb each other with screaming and disgust each other by changing shitty nappies in public. They should be in a soundproof box though so the athletes are unaffected.
bobbledunk, I'm afraid that Lord Coe already has his advisory committee in place, but I'm sure there's a place for you if one of them unexpectedly has to drop out.
Maybe you could head up the Legacy For Children Fuck That panel, or chair the 'I say I don't care but actually I really do' contradiction committee. The cruel baby dragging relay also needs a people's champion, although I hear that Katie Hopkins is being seriously considered for the role.
Meant to say 'nobody cares for your excuses'.
Bobble, you say it's not about hating children. Your post says otherwise.
I am just imagining someone from a less uptight country than ours reading this thread. They'd think us a nation of loons.
I don't hate children at all. Just not badly parented ones. Regarding babies, I love babies, even have one myself but I do not want to be stuck next to somebody else's screaming baby (that they refuse to take out) at any event I have paid money for.
What about that do you not understand?
You're right. Your phrase "badly behaved brats" was written in a doe-eyed state of baby love. How could I possibly have misread the whole tone of your post?!
People don't want to be stuck next to some self obsessed woman and her screaming baby that she is ignoring, get over it.
Not relying on oversimplistic caricatures, are you? Those kind of acerbic imagination-driven generalisations are impossible to take seriously. But I think you're probably more interested in writing for effect than being taken seriously, so, as you were.
I've got to be honest and wonder why people pay so much to watch what is in effect a marketing exercise for London and for capitalism.
I'm a big sport fan but i'd struggle to even watch this nonsense on the telly let alone pay for the "I love London" show.
Synchronised farting and competing well whilst getting soundly thrashed isn't a spectacle i'd freely pay for.
LineRunner has said it all for me really, but is anyone else now imagining seas of screaming, breast feeding babies with just the occasional childless spectator dotted here and there? I mean surely we are only talking about a very small occurrence of a very young bf infant, or has the prospect of the Olympics 2012 created some kind of baby boom the likes of which the world has never seen ?
wormy was just going to post along those very lines. All those poor people who have tickets and don't have children - they won't get to see any actual sport, they'll be too busy getting disturbed by all the milky boobs and screaming babies. Funny how you rarely notice milky boobs and screaming babies on a day-to-day basis, but somehow the Olympic stadium will be absolutely full of them,devastating the chances of our athletes.
I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the Olympics were taking place in Spain or Italy? I suspect not.
W0rmy, I think the answer to your question is 'yes'; reading the more absurd posts on here it seems that's exactly what some people are imagining!
There was also an article in The Times about it yesterday. Maybe with the issue in the open now, they might change their policy? I don't mind paying your age or even half price - what I do mind is getting the tickets? I don't think, it'll be easier 2nd time round ....
The noise of a couple of babies will destroy our athletes' chances for medals? So, erm, how come the organisers were selling children's tickets in the first place?
I like the presumption that only British athletes have supersonic hearing/are that easily distracted, and will thus lose out on medals, too.
I've never actually been to anything like the Olympics, but I know the crowd can get loud (and incredibly abusive towards the players) at football matches, and yet the away team has been known to win, despite that. Just occasionally, you know.
Surely a slight "ehhhhhhh, ehhhhh" for milk in the midst of cheers would be child's play? (Yeah, that's a terrible pun.)
I actually think people will be more irritated and annoyed by the three year-olds than by a week-old baby. But for some reason it seems to be the babies that are causing all the fury.
Oh for the love of humanity. It is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOISE!!! The 'I hate children and think they should all be left at home til the age of 18/21" lunatics should move to a different thread, because I thought this was supposed to be about the fact that the organisers of the Olympics had cocked up and thereby effectively invalidated some people's tickets by not taking account of the fact that new people would have come into the world between purchase of tickets and actual event.
Not only is it vicious and child-phobic bollocks to say that babies will be a massive pest, it is totally IRRELEVANT.
Didn't some schoolchildren get given tickets for free?
Think how excited they'll be! Now, newborn babies sleep during the day.
Mind you, I do want to amend my previous point, about athletes being able to tolerate noise.
It may not be true about the horses being able to put up with spectator noises. I know little about horses, and I don't want to make a claim one way or the other, when I know nowt.
Flowerface: "I thought this was supposed to be about the fact that the organisers of the Olympics had cocked up and thereby effectively invalidated some people's tickets by not taking account of the fact that new people would have come into the world between purchase of tickets and actual event."
You're absolutely right. But the red herrings are so distracting and fun to pounce on.
"If you were in a huge amount of debt to the bank and some of your friends had lent you money and despite the fact you were scrimping and saving to get by, would you then decide to suddenly throw a HUGE party that was going to cost a fortune?
But Britain has.
Totally agree. In year to come when the NHS had disappeared at least we'll all be able to say "we did get the olympics though, didn't we so it's all worthwhile". Totall waste of money and shameful when people in this country are already struggling due to the cuts which are only going to get worse.
No idea where that extra 'l' came from in total .. oops.
This is Wimbledon's policy (taken from their website):
Babes in Arms and Children under 5 years:
We recommend that babes in arms and pushchairs are not brought to The Championships as the Grounds are large and crowded.
A ticket is not required for those under 5.
Babes in arms and children under five are NOT allowed in the Show Courts (Centre Court, No.1 Court, and Courts 2, 3, 12 and 18)
A limited number of baby changing facilities are available on site.
Children 5 years and over
A ticket (full price) is required
Children in this category are allowed into all courts provided that they have their own seat and do not disturb other spectators.
NOTE: Children under 12 years MUST be accompanied by an adult at ALL times
Goodness I agree with flowerface some of the opinions expressed on here are frankly ridiculous. The argument is nothing to do with noise it's about choice, access and fairness. We should all as citizens surely have the choice as to whether we want to attend the Olympics. Others may have an opinion and some would definitely choose not to contemplate attending with young dcs, but others would having considered the difficulties.
It's discriminatory to suggest someone takes too much room or makes too much noise and so can't come. What if we were talking about disabled people, teenagers, obese people or just ignorant ones. I've met them all thankfully at public events and sure sometimes it's annoying but we live in a society made up of all of us.
The argument is about making it accessible for people like myself who have been lucky enough to get family tickets for my family of 4 and have since had the fortune to conceive since then and will have a 8 week babe. I have considered the aggro and stuff in going but as the tickets are for Greenwich park with no seats and open grass I have decided that we can manage. But under the current policy it looks highly unlikely I will get entry as it's oversubscribed and I need another ticket. A full price one for my babe would be extortionate as the only reason we bid at all was because of the age related ticket policy.
Also childcare for us who live 7 hours away from London would not bf possible and would distress me and the baby more than any enjoyment of going to the Games.
I'm going to be taking a 3 and a 4yo to see some athletics (they get to pay their age, which seemed like a great bargain). They are already excited and will probably make lots of noise!
With luck I will also have a 5 month old baby, who will have spent its five months being carted all round London as I do this and that. The Olympics isn't going to be more traumatic than the Tube in rush hour, Oxford St, cinema, fireworks displays, etc.
I'm quite happy to pay an admin charge so the security people can issue the baby a ticket to sit on my lap and know how many people are on site. Airlines manage this all the time.
The stupid thing is that I can't give Locog money and they won't do this unless there happens to be a physical seat for an adult in the stadium, which the baby wouldn't be sitting on even if I can get one because it won't be able to sit up yet! Totally pointless.
Time to FOI DCMS (Locog aren't covered) as to why they decided to make seats a requirement rather than allowing babes-in-arms like Wimbledon, previous Olympics in Vancouver, and airplanes all do...
I agree that Babies should not be charged or require a seat
notcitrus whcih day are you going to the athletics? I have a child ticket going spare for fri 3 Aug in the morning as no way am I talking my nutty toddler, that really would ruin the olympics
alorsmum - That's very kind. I need to either call them now I've found our tracking number, or fix my laptop to find out what day it is - it could be that one. Will PM you.
I do wonder what would happen if someone did get a separate seat for their baby and put the baby in it - surely they'd be immediately done for neglect?!
i have had to sign up and log in just tonight to add my 2 pence worth.
i have got olympic tickets. i purchased my families tickets for a number of events knowing full well that i was paying full price for my 2 + 4 year old children. my 2 yr old daughter is disabled and will not need her own seat at all, but as i knew i would be taking her, i had to pay. this is not a case of whether i agree with it, i certainly dont, but the 2012 website has clearly stated its rules, terms and conditions on its website. and there ARE plenty of events where the child only pays their age in £'s.
as for all the imbesiles saying its discriminatory or illegal or neglectful, how about seeing from the side of the people in my position, who HAVE paid for their 'established' children, why should other people then take their children/babies into the events for free? is that not discrimination against the large number of hard working parents who agree to bite the bullet and just get on with it.
I'm a long time lurker and hardly ever post. Having seen how badly this thread kicked off, I stayed out of it. Then I saw the out cry in the paper.
Like deeteepee, I don't get it. Discrimination, illegality and neglectful ... are you all out of your minds?
The OP has a choice, she is not being discriminated against, she can either leave her baby behind or sell her tickets on. The OP wants everything her own way right now for a person who was not even in existence when the tickets were sold.
The only discriminatory thing going on here is the OP being offered a ticket at all. Where has this ticket come from? My family and I completely missed out on tickets. We got nothing in the oriignal bid and the resale. My DD is horse mad and would die to see the show jumping. I love horses too and would like to see it. As far as I was aware there are no olympic tickets left and you log on to the webiste there is nothing for sale. But the OP was offered another ticket .......! If there are tickets available they should be sold to the people who didn't get them not give them to people who weren't conceived at the time of sale. it is discriminatory and unfair not to.
So a victory for mums and common sense
Dear London 2012 Customer,
Further to your enquiry regarding babes in arms we are pleased to advise you of the following:
Babes in arms, aged 12 months and under, will be permitted access to London 2012 venues without a ticket if they are securely strapped to their parent or carer by way of a baby carrier, sling, papoose or similar. This policy applies to all London 2012 venues except Wembley Stadium, St James Park, Old Trafford and North Greenwich Arena which have existing licensing agreements whereby spectators must have a ticket no matter their age.
We would advise that parents think carefully before bringing their baby to the Games. The transport system will be busy, there will be queues at venues and some venues may be hot.
Parents of babies must adhere to the LOCOG bag policy which is one bag per ticket holder which must be able to fit under the seat. In addition they will need to adhere to the food and drink policies for spectators.
Buggies/pushchairs cannot be taken into the venues, but they can be left at the buggy parks which are located close to the venues.
Our babes in arms policy only covers babes in arms aged 12 months and under. Other children will require a ticket at all venues.
If you have any further queries please check our frequently asked questions.
With kind regards,
London 2012 Ticketing team
I think children tickets should be 50k each, that way the people who are there because they actually want to will be able to enjoy it in peace.
A victory for fairness and common sense. Will be going along with baby aged approx 10 weeks old
I wouldn't take a baby to one of these events anyway. It will be massively crowded, probably very hot, there probably won't be anywhere or any space to change them (and if there is there will be a huge queue). I have been to Wembley when it has been full. No way would I take a baby or toddler to anything like that, far too much chance of getting hurt or overheating in a crowd, plus long journey on public transport to get there, again in crowded tube. Luckily my ds will be about 14 months by the time of the Olympics, so he is staying with gps for the day. If not I would rather not go than take him.
You get a better view on TV anyway!
Well the event I'm going to is outdoors and not in London. I have no qualms about taking a baby and I'm glad I now have the choice.
I reckon it will be far easier taking a baby than the 5 and 3yo's I'm taking thanks to the bank of Grandma.
It's going to be interesting getting them across London I have to say.
If you haven't got a ticket for your child you could always dress up your little one as a soldier as they seem to be needed to fill all the spaces!!
My daughters ticket was £2 and my son £7 we are going tomorrow and soooooooo excited. I have to say staying at home to watch the Olympics has been nice and easy but I haven't felt this excited for ages! Getting out of the house with the kids will be fab and my plan is too keep them quite with lots of food (chocolate medals balanced by lots of fruit). They can always go for a walk around the arena with my better half if they get a bit bored, and hopefully all the cheering will be louder than them! I'm taking the pram as the 2 year old will be tired in the afternoon! The Olympics is here and I am soooo happy to be going Not looking forward to the silly time we have to get up though!
This is a very old thread. Policy has changed and babes in arms go free with their parents.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.