Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Full price babies at the Olympics

311 replies

littlepinklizard · 06/01/2012 15:12

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?

OP posts:
BristolChris · 25/01/2012 08:04

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.

ellesabe · 25/01/2012 08:07

If they're breastfed they do! Ignorant comments Sad

squeaver · 25/01/2012 08:09

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.

Meglet · 25/01/2012 08:12

Hopkins is a hideous woman. I always make sure I avoid her on TV.

BristolChris · 25/01/2012 08:12

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.

TurkeyBurgerThing · 25/01/2012 08:22

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?

No.

But Britain has.

I see on BBC Breakfast this morning they're going to discuss this very topic.

WoTmania · 25/01/2012 08:32

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.

coraltoes · 25/01/2012 08:33

Turkey, I am with you. A total joke.

LadyLaybourne · 25/01/2012 08:50

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!

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere · 25/01/2012 08:50

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 Hmm 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.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere · 25/01/2012 08:52

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.

noddyholder · 25/01/2012 08:58

I remember the old days when babies where just bloody babies. Leave them at home and give everyone peace. Or pay up.

ellesabe · 25/01/2012 09:02

Noddy - are you 80? interesting that when I typed Noddy, the spell check tried to change it to 'Biddy' :)

southeastastra · 25/01/2012 09:04

i wouldn't want to sit next to a squarking baby either after paying £££ to attend. sorry!

oltob · 25/01/2012 09:04

why have the BBC they rolled out Katie Hopkins for this debate - nonsense

southeastastra · 25/01/2012 09:05

becasue she provokes debate hence everyone posting on here Hmm

noddyholder · 25/01/2012 09:06

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 Grin

PeneloPeePitstop · 25/01/2012 09:07

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?

SpanishFly · 25/01/2012 09:07

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.

bonkersLFDT20 · 25/01/2012 09:07

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]

KatAndKit · 25/01/2012 09:09

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.

StinaCupcake · 25/01/2012 09:14

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! :o

OddBoots · 25/01/2012 09:15

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.

bonkersLFDT20 · 25/01/2012 09:17

Odd TBH, your enjoyment is more likely to be interrupted by raucous older children than a newborn baby.

venusandmars · 25/01/2012 09:24

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.