Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Not me, was this mum unreasonable?

49 replies

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 21:03

I'll save my opinion for now.

I was swimming on Sunday at the local pool, it's a VERY quiet women only session which is lovely.

A woman brought her 4/5 to the pool with her.

The little girl had arm-bands and a ring and was floating happily in the shallow end. Seemed unphased and was happily holding the edge and scooting along the edge slowly. The mum would talk to her, swim a length quickly, talk, swim...and so on. The other women in the pool were also talking to her, smiling. At some point there was someone always near the child plus two lifeguards.

The lifeguards weren't fussed until a woman loudly complained about the unattended child. They then told the woman she couldn't leave her to swim lengths. The mum changed the little girl sat her on the bench by the pool and tried to get a few lengths in. The little girl was happy watching and din't leave the bench, seemed quiet and mature for her age and very obdient. The mum did about 1.5 lengths before the same women started shouting to the lifeguard about the unattended child near the pool edge, said she'd report them to the manager if they didn't tell the mum to stop it.

OP posts:

withorwithoutyou · 14/09/2010 21:50

Those sessions sound good, would love to take my DD1 to one!

Would never leave her bobbing around in the pool on the (I assume, unspoken?, proviso that someone else would intervene to look after her if she was in trouble).

But then I also read that recent post on drowning on here and I think if a parent can literally watch their child drown in front of them without realising it I certainly wouldn't trust a bunch of strangers who I hadn't even consulted to keep her safe.

TheLadyEvenstar · 14/09/2010 21:51

I wouldn't leave a child unattended in a pool. 2yrs ago I was on holiday with DS1,DS2,DP and my friend we were all in the pool playing and I took my eyes off DS1 for a moment to look for the ball we were playing with....that was all it took for him to spot the ball and go after it, the next thing i heard was him scream and a life guard dive in to rescue him....and he was 10yrs old.

booyhoo · 14/09/2010 21:55

ok now you have explained that kids are allowed then i think the other woman was UR for still going on about the child when she was just watching. does she have a problem withe the mother?

Minxie1977 · 14/09/2010 21:57

Personally it all sounds fine to me and the shouty woman sounds like a loon!

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:00

The woman complaining just seemed to be one of those bossy controlling types. I think the lifeguards hadn't handled the situation originally exactly how she had prescribed (ask woman to leave for gross offense) and the second complain was her in a foul mood they hadn't complied. She was stating health and safety etc. and loud enough the second time for me to be able to hear her at the opposite end of the pool word for word. The second time the lifeguard sat on her tall chair and blanked her.

OP posts:

MumNWLondon · 14/09/2010 22:01

I do this with DD she is 6, but can swim 20 lengths up and down pool, but a little slower than me. The stupid policy at the pool means I am not allowed to sit on the side and watch her, yet its ok for me to swim lengths providing I am in the pool! But I always tell the lifeguard she's mine.

With DS who is 4 I don't take my eyes off him for one minute and if I wanted to swim at all I'd have to either make him swim on the side or swim with him on my back - which is surely the best solution!

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 14/09/2010 22:04

Shouldn't have left the child IN the pool unattended while swimming lengths.

Not intrinsically unreasonable to have left her by the side of the pool when swimming lengths provided that she was sitting quietly.

But if "women only" means "adults only" then she shouldn't have brought her DD with her at all.

BUT but shouting and threatening lifeguard was OTT so complainy woman also unreasonable.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:04

I was fine with the child being there. A clearly calm well behaved lovely little girl doing exactly as she was told by holding on plus being inflated so well you'd have trouble even pushing her under if you tried. Add in the pleasant lifeguards who moved out of their chairs to chat to each other where she was I thought it was fine. Obviously though if you follow H&S rules rather than common sense it's not ok. Aside from this woman it was all very good natured. I'm amazed they still run the sessions as only about 7-12 women ever go, the least ever I've seen was 4 women. The lifeguard tend to clean up while we swim and go home as soon as we've changed so if there's no kids and confident swimmers supervision can be very lax and people look out for each other. It's one of those sessions we're lucky to have survive this modern culture of blame and covering your backs.

OP posts:

hellooo · 14/09/2010 22:08

Sorry, why do you mention she was muslim?

Can't for the life of me think why that's relevant unless you think it was the reason for the shouty woman's approach? Was it?

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 14/09/2010 22:13

I was surprised in the recent publicity for the "drowning doesn't look like drowning" article to realise how many lifeguards don't realise the signs of drowning/don't notice children drowning right in front of them.

While other women are actually talking to her clearly no problem, but it's a bit of a cheek to just assume that other people will not swim lengths and mind your child while you get in some lengths.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:18

hellooo-Why not mention she was muslim? It's one of the first things you notice in the pool as she's dressed differently to most other women present, I was briefly describing her as I remember her.. Is it not acceptable to mention certain characteristics of people anymore? I have pointed out a black friend to someone looking for him before my saying 'he's the black man by the table' rather than saying 'he's the man in the middle of the three men by the table with curly black hair and a nigerian accent and the jeans that are lighter than his mates'. Should I skirt around mentioning anything do with difference between people?

Why so over-sensitive? I haven't made any presumptions or commented on her religion/ attire.

OP posts:

hellooo · 14/09/2010 22:23

Over-sensitive? It was just a question.

Obviously if you're trying to describe someone so they can be spotted in a crowd it's useful to say that it's the black man by the table.

But I don't understand why, in this instance, you mentioned what you presumably believed her religion to be. So that's why I asked. Do you think it influenced the woman's reaction? Or not? Because I don't understand why you mentioned it.

And while we're on the subject, I think you are being rather over sensitive yourself.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:26

I just find it odd when people jump on these points. People are very quick to make something of it.

Can you see how the muslim women who swim in the session are obviously muslim from their attire? I haven't thought about if it influenced the other woman, I really don't know what went through her mind. I mentioned it as it goes some way to describing her.

OP posts:

hellooo · 14/09/2010 22:27

Ok, thanks for that, I'll be sure to keep my eye out for her.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:32

Yes, just like you'd keep an eye out for her if I'd said 'a young mum in a red swimsuit'. Quite.

OP posts:

Hulababy · 14/09/2010 22:32

In our local pools are non swimmers must be supervised at all times in the pool or vicinity of the pool - I take this to mean the edge of the pool too. Obviously if the mum has specifically asked another woman, who had agreed, to supervise her child whilst she swam lengths, that is fine. But you can't just leave your child in water or next to water and assume someone else will check they are ok.

thesecondcoming · 14/09/2010 22:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bosch · 14/09/2010 22:39

Surely the reaction of the staff is relevant here?

By their actions they have agreed to what this young mum has done and offered (unspoken) supervision to the child.

If the complaining woman was really unhappy about the situation then tbh her beef was more with the staff than the mum - if they have 'broken every h & s rule in the book' then can she trust them with her own h & s???

Actually I think they took a human, common sense approach to the situation and I feel really sorry for all those involved including the complaining woman and the woman/child complained about.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:41

Bosch-I'd agree, it just seemed 'human' when everywhere else often seems so cold and faceless when it comes to helping others.

OP posts:

TheBolter · 14/09/2010 22:42

I don't think the mother was being particularly unreasonable. I think the old bag who was interfering was though. If it was me I would assume that the woman didn't have any help and therefore had to bring her dd, in which case I would almost want to help her!

I don't think strawberrycake was being U by mentioning the woman's religion because there could have been a racist, bullying undercurrent to the shouty woman's shouting. Which would be disgusting, and I hope wasn't the case.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 22:46

I hope there was no racist undercurrent too, but it's impossible to tell.

If I must analyze myself in mentioning her religion I guess it comes to mind as the extra covering added to her shy and awkward manner in a way, her body language was almost like she was hiding in herself and her clothing highlighted this manner of hers as she pulled on her sleeves as she spoke.

OP posts:

SkylineDrifter · 14/09/2010 23:35

Lady with child was a little bit unreasonable - perhaps if she'd asked someone to keep an eye on her daughter it would have been ok, but strawberry, perhaps next time you see her you could make a point of saying you'll keep an eye on the little girl for her while she gets a few lengths in.

OTT woman was just that - OTT! She sounds like a delightfully unreasonable person.

hellooo - why don't you look on MN as a chat between friends - we say all sorts of things that don't really have any relevance to the conversation going on. They just kind of flesh things out. In this case, I think it's relevant, as it sounds like OTT woman very possibly was racially motivated in her demands.

Original poster

strawberrycake · 15/09/2010 08:03

Skyline, I've suggested to her if she wants to go regularly I'll bring step ds and we can take turns watching them both/ swimming. I feel guilty not taking him but really don't want to give up the tiny amount of exercise I do! Don't know if it's a fair swap though, her lovely meek little girl and my demanding ds!

OP posts:

diddl · 15/09/2010 09:00

I think the woman handled it very badly but usually non swimmers are only allowed in the non swimmers pool.

Plus about the woman being Muslim-maybe she doesn´t want to swim when men are also there so women only is the only time she can go & it isn´t at a time when she can get childcare.

But in some ways she is using it as free childcare so not really on, I think.

Flip

1 2