Not allowing heavily pregnant woman to use a loo

@wombat15 you seem obsessed with the insurance thing.
Why?

Perhaps this was the first time op had been in such dire need..and didn't realise that wearing pretty incontinence pants would be a good move?

"Jobsworths" to point out that employees don't create the policies but might lose their jobs if they breach the policy?

What a lot of fuss

I have a very dodgy bladder and have taken to wearing tena pads when I'm out

Couldn't you do this OP?

Staff toilets are for staff.

YABU

But that is literally the meaning of "jobsworth". It's more than my job's worth. So if I let you do X, I will lose my job, and therefore my job is worth more to me than doing that thing is to you.

How horrible for you OP, and I can't believe the nasty and condescending comments on here. Maybe it wasn't practically possible to let you use the loo for whatever reason, but hiding behind "policy" was very cold of them. What about basic human decency?

There is no insurance issue. Just a lot of jobsworths on this thread

If it makes you feel any better I once flooded the floor while standing at Sainsbury's checkout. Turns out it was a UTI with the only symptom being sudden and complete loss of bladder control.

I now shop at Asda.

In almost 30 years of working in retail...not food or clothing...I have never been told that under no circumstances should a customer be allowed a trip to the toilet for insurance reasons.
I can send people to the pub opposite. Or if a child or pregnant woman looks desperate I can use my discretion.
It happens very seldom, and mostly it is a toddler doing the dance they do.
I live in a small town and know all the toilets and bushes, as a pp said...I have 3 kids. Lidl staff are very helpful, which is counter intuitive. Our local community centre has a lot of 'for customer use only ' signs despite being beside a playground.
I'm actually pretty horrified at a lot of negativity towards op.

Some cunty comments of the highest order on this thread.
Yes insurance, bla bla bla. There is a reasonable explanation for it but to stick the boot into the op when she's had such a horrible experience is vile.
Having had urgency issues in the past I know only too well the sheer panic of needing the loo and not being able to access one and knowing that if you don't find somewhere quick you're going to be in a horrible, humiliating situation.
Some of you have clearly had a huge empathy bypass.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

This

Was very grateful coming out of covid era that a young man allowed me to use Asda loo when i was desperate. But if he'd said no I'd have understood Our local co op would let us, but then they know all the customers

I recently rode on an vintage tourist tram, and the driver gave us a commentary on the sights. When we stopped at an old rural station, the tram driver pointed out a small wrought iron structure which turned out to be a Victorian urinal. He explained that there were no toilet facilities for women as Victorian women apparently didn’t need such things!

I’m not sure what the rationale was there. Were women expected to hold it, to give the illusion of having no bodily functions? Were they supposed to stay at home, except for a short daily stroll, perhaps? Or did some Victorian men honestly believe that women were mechanised dollies?

Anyone who has worked in places with public toilets, will well understand why smaller shops don't want their toilets being used by the public. The general public are disgusting, and stupid. Amongst other reasons of course.

One of those things where legally there is no flexibility. They only had a staff toilet, you aren't staff so they wouldn't have had the insurance for you to use their loo. They were right to say no. In fact, it would possibly have been illegal for them to say yes. If they had had a customer toilet, and said no to a pregnant women who wasn't a customer, that would have been mean, but not letting you use the staff loo was 100% the correct response.

Which involves time and hassle for staff who likely have better things to do.

Nope.
You cannot lawfully exclude liability for personal injury or death.

What a ludicrously over-dramatic post. 🙄

My local Co op often has to temporary close when a delivery arrives because there will literally be one member of staff working.
I think a lot of people don't realise how few staff are actually working in these small shops.
Can you imagine the AIBU threads if the co op closed every time they let someone use the toilet (and needs to be accompanied to the back shop)?

No, and it sounds like I’m the time it would’ve taken to do that it would be too late anyway. Plus it’s not just an insurance issue, it’s a staffing issue, perhaps the toilets aren’t easily accessible from the shop floor, perhaps they’ve had people use this tactic to steal or distract staff so their accomplice can steal before, perhaps they’ve had people go in and smear shit on the walls or use drugs before.

It’s a shame it happened but it’s not the shop’s issue to solve, they didn’t refuse to give first aid or call an ambulance, of course it’s not nice to wet yourself but you go home, shower have a little cry and get on with your life.

No because if they are desperate for the loo they wouldn't have time to read and consider the contents of the form

It's not an insurance issue.

It is possible that the staff toilets may have been inaccessible due to narrow corridors and stock. I have worked in stores where the staff toilets are on the second floor, the stairs have been very uneven or upstairs across a roof.