Full price babies at the Olympics

[littlepinklizard]

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?

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 :o

OP, YANBU to think it's a ridiculous policy on ticket prices.

they will think about it

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'....

Well done KatieMN .

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.