Advanced search

To be getting fed up of these type of jumping on the band wagon breastfeeding threads

(403 Posts)
sharonthewaspandthewineywall Tue 16-Dec-14 07:21:56


FTR I'm very pro breastfeeding and think where children are permitted mothers should be able to feed their babies in whichever way they choose. But to me this is a completely different situation and this running to the papers screaming about the inequity of it all is pointless and doesnt actually help in cases where people do breach the equality act.

namechange47583 Tue 16-Dec-14 07:45:39

YANBU, this is a similar situation to the mother who wanted to take her baby to the spa. There are just some places that are unsuitable for small babies. Stories like this set back other breastfeeding mums.

ChristmasDawndonnaagain Tue 16-Dec-14 08:29:02

I'm sorry, I think she has a valid point. She was booked to play, she had a childminder with her, so wasn't abandoning the child, and said child is exclusively breastfed. A bylaw that doesn't let it under twelves is probably a) obsolete or b) inapplicable in the case of babes in arms.

BertieBotts Tue 16-Dec-14 08:38:43

I didn't see anything in that article which said she was complaining about not being allowed to breastfeed in there. She was upset because she wasn't allowed to take her baby in there. The fact she was breastfeeding was more used to illustrate the fact that this small baby is dependent on her.

It's more of an example of how mothers are expected to curtail their lives - I expect that the expectation was she'd not go if her baby was too small to be parted from her. But realistically, such a small baby would be no trouble at all and can hardly be counted as a "person" in terms of "persons under 12 years". Rambunctuous toddler or six year old, I can understand. A teeny baby, with somebody to take it out if it cries, shouldn't be an issue at all.

hackmum Tue 16-Dec-14 08:45:58

How on earth is she jumping on the bandwagon? She just wanted her babysitter to look after her baby in the dressing room while she played the gig she was booked to do. She couldn't leave the baby at home because she was breastfeeding it. As it says in the article, she left her four year old at home with another babysitter.

sharonthewaspandthewineywall Tue 16-Dec-14 09:56:31

She may want her baby with her. But children aren't allowed. She wouldn't be able to take her baby to a nightclub she was performing at either due to laws not because of discrimination. It's nothing to go to the papers about

OxonConfusedDotCom Tue 16-Dec-14 10:05:59

Yabu- it is her workplace. Her baby is tiny. No brainer!

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut Tue 16-Dec-14 10:08:16

Ah, a perfectly ironic thread.

DixieNormas Tue 16-Dec-14 10:15:46

The made a big issue out of nothing really didn't they, a small baby with a baby sitter in a dressing room two floors below the function room

PhaedraIsMyName Tue 16-Dec-14 10:19:47

.*A bylaw that doesn't let it under twelves is probably a) obsolete or b) inapplicable in the case of babes in arms*

Several of you are missing the point entirely It's not a bye-law , it's a rule the premises have as they don't allow anyone under 12 in. It is applicable to anyone under 12 and is neither unreasonable , nor illegal nor obsolete. I can't go on 18-30 holidays nor Saga holidays. It's exactly the same thing.

We have had a few ridiculous threads on this -the spa one, the Chelsea Flower show one. Venues who have age restrictions are perfectly entitled to enforce them strictly otherwise everyone who thinks it doesn't apply to them will be pleading a special case.

PhaedraIsMyName Tue 16-Dec-14 10:20:14

Venues which have etc.etc

canweseethebunnies Tue 16-Dec-14 10:28:10

Actually, I disagree with you. Ebf is encouraged, but essentially it's a massive barrier for women working. Laws should be modified in these circumstances. She didn't want to take the baby into the club, just the dressing room!

The baby had to stay in the car, on a cold night, when it could have been in the dressing room without causing any problems. Ridiculous! I think in circumstances like this, where it's easy to accommodate a tiny ebf baby for one person, they should be accommodated, and the law should allow it.

Gimmesomemore Tue 16-Dec-14 10:31:44

The law needs to change then and support mothers in circumstances like these.

raltheraffe Tue 16-Dec-14 10:34:30

She had already hired on babysitter to look after her 4 year old and so why not express some milk and leave the baby with babysitter number one? Would have saved on babysitting fees and baby would have probably preferred being at home in a familiar environment.

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 16-Dec-14 10:38:22

I work in an age restricted premises.

I could not let a baby in or a small child to use the loo regardless of whether or not they are using the facilities.

with licensing rules are very strict. no o's no. There's no " if I keep them out of view here...." they literally are not allowed through the doors or they could loose license

TheFairyCaravan Tue 16-Dec-14 10:39:27


The rule is in place so there would have been no insurance for the baby if, God forbid, something had happened to the building.

This is just like the woman who wanted to take her baby to the Spa (and had already smuggled it into an adults only retreat) and the woman on here who had a thread about taking her baby to the Chelsea Flower Show although children aren't allowed.

If babies aren't allowed, they aren't allowed. It's not compulsory to go, so stay at home or work round it.

PhaedraIsMyName Tue 16-Dec-14 10:39:58

But every one is a special case. The woman at the spa was , so was the woman at Chelsea Flower Show.

raltheraffe Tue 16-Dec-14 10:44:37

I worked from when my son was 10 weeks and if I either left baby with DH or put him in nursery. It would have been very nice to take baby around with me, however it would have breached my clients H&S policies and my own company H&S policy to take him in. Plus some of my clients are factories with fork lift trucks shooting around the place and that is not a good environment for a baby to be put in. I prioritised my baby's needs over mine and felt baby would be safer and happier either at home or in nursery.

canweseethebunnies Tue 16-Dec-14 10:51:56

Phaedra if it was just a rule and not a law, presumably they could have made an exception in this case if they wanted the woman to perform. She's not a customer!

If they simply refused to make an exception, thereby forcing the baby to stay in the car, they are twats!

BertieBotts Tue 16-Dec-14 10:52:10

raltheraffe - Do you think she really hadn't thought of that and wouldn't have done that FIRST if that was an option? Obviously she couldn't for some reason.

On the "babies are not allowed" thing, well, why aren't children allowed? Usually either because they would spoil the atmosphere for adults, because children are naturally noisy and excitable and unpredictable and it's not fair to expect them to act otherwise so take them somewhere else please. Sometimes because they could harm something old or delicate or expensive because they are not old enough to understand and parents might not supervise them adequately, or it's for their protection - because things are happening that they shouldn't witness or take part in. OK so even small babies can be noisy, but in this case the noise could be contained. And absolutely none of the others apply to babes in arms. I can see why she might have thought it would be OK.

I suspect though what happened is that she had assumed it would be fine, she'd get a babysitter, but nearer to the time wound up with a baby who won't take a bottle and just thought "I'll have to take him with me - I'm sure they won't mind" and did it so last minute that she hoped they'd just agree. As it is sitting in the car was an OK compromise although not ideal, and seems a little petty when the baby would not have been a disruption.

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 16-Dec-14 10:52:40


these rules are to protect vulnerable people. from being influenced or from being in unsafe areas.

A dressing room may well not be cleaned as much or have electrics tucked away in a safer way as it would in the public areas.

There may well be no cctv so if anything was lost or stolen or baby got hurt they'd ne no way to determine what happened.

The club also have no idea if the baby sitter will bring baby out. presumably she can't answer phone whilst performing so the only way to get hold of her would to bring baby out into the club area.

BertieBotts Tue 16-Dec-14 10:53:28

(In reply to "she should express milk....."

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 16-Dec-14 10:55:54

Oh and the no kids rule where I work applies to staff and staff areas aswell

BertieBotts Tue 16-Dec-14 10:56:04

Well not really Giles. She wasn't going to walk off stage in the middle of a performance to feed. I expect she planned to feed during the interval and directly before/after the show. That would be adequate but leaving the baby for the full 4-6 hours she was probably out isn't.

Of course not all environments are safe for children. But this child was in-arms, not crawling about the place exploring. If he was that old he'd have been perfectly able to be left at home with a babysitter.

TheFairyCaravan Tue 16-Dec-14 10:56:08

canwesee they can't make an exception for one person because where will they end up drawing the line?

For H&S reasons they wouldn't have been able to do it either because the baby wouldn't be covered by their insurance due to their no under 12's rule.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now