Would you leave your baby unattended in their buggy

[noblegiraffe]

...while you use the loo?

On another thread I mentioned not being able to get a buggy into a small cubicle and the suggestion was to leave baby outside.

Would I be overly precious in thinking 'No, I wouldn't do that'?

Dawndonna's dd here. Again.
My twin has a boyfriend. Part of the reason is she will never stink of piss. My sister has a boyfriend because she's funny and beautiful and clever. I don't. I know that one day I will, I can be funny and clever too, but I will often be a bit smelly and sometimes I'll be very smelly.
It's quite a responsibility taking me out too, I need to know in advance where all the loos are. I need a bag with a full change of clothes along with a change of cushion cover if I'm taking my chair. You have no idea what it's like to be out with a group of friends and to have to ask one of them to help you change out of your piss soaked clothes, hold you up whilst you wash yourself in a grotty sink so that your skin doesn't end up burning you to fuck later on. You have no idea how much you worry when your wet clothes are sealed in a bag, as to whether you or they can be smelt, it can ruin a day/evening, constantly worrying whether or not you reek of piss. You have no idea how many times I've come home early and cried myself to sleep because of it.
You have no idea.

HERE YOU GO SO YOU DONT NEED TO SCROLL BACK!!

feeling it has the baby chamge for you to change your baby if necessary, not for you to use that toilet.

Bangs head against brick wall.

Yes smal, I see what you are saying about that lady, however, her feelings and worry would still be exactly the same were another disabled person or baby changing mother using the cubicle before her. It sounds harsh of me but it honestly isn't.

And how can you say that cubicle is only for someone to change their baby but not use the loo at the same time....think that's a bit ?

I do both whilst in there. Now Im not getting into this. It beggars belief that people have a go at others who use facilities as that is what is there and have no choice to, I didn't design the toilets at lets see:

Local Costa
House of Fraser
Gym
Slug and Lettuce
MAC center - this one actually say for people who have restricted access as main toilets are down two flights of stairs.

I have never come out of a toilet in a Costa to find one let alone a que of people in wheelchairs who have wet themselves - or anyone else.

I rally get very fed up about this issue Costa for example repeatedly provide ONE toilet that can be accessed by ALL users is this not fair?

I use the toilet that is designed to meet my needs on any given occasion with or without child. FFS

No she could accept a other person with a disability using the toilet as that would be bad luck and the chances of to happening would be slim, but if every entitled fuckwit parent uses the disabled toilet then it will happen all the time! On account to there being lots more parents than there at people with disabilities.

But this has all been said on the thread already.

Maybe you don't see a line of wheel chairs at costa as people who rely on disabled toilets plan their outing / drinks / meals around access. As popping the loo is a strategic manoeuvre for some wheelchair users/ disabled people, that makes a buggy look like a walk in the park.

Is it genuinely felt that people with a buggy should not use toilets for wheel chair users?

yes!! the clue is in the name disabled toilet.

having a baby is not a disability.

Well I only use the ones where there are baby changers, if there was a wheel chair user behind me I would step aside and use it after. But if that is my only ACCESS (which is the same as a wheelchair user) of facilities I feel I have no choice, and apart from scanning immediate area to check for other potential users what should I do?

My view was nappy changing parents AND wheelchair users or those with impaired movement are in the minority and have toilets apportioned to them in comparison to the other group/toilets.

I feel having a go at people who use facilities designed to met their needs i.e. a bag changing table when hey have no other choice is misplaced, it is the owners/designers of the establishments that need to be addressed.

In the places I mentioned above I have never come across an issue I go out to these most days esp gym which has its disabled shower facilities in the family room so it is shared. I don't see what the problem is with sharing.

Feeling good.

Did you seriously just claim that you pushing a buggy is just as limiting as a person using a wheelchair?

Feeling i think the list you gave are accessible toilets for all that have been designed to accommodate wheelchairs / nappy change / unisex. That is different to refusing to use cubicle because buggy/ child will not fit in and instead choosing to use the toilet which has been provided for disabled use.

sock, feelinggood simply means that when she has the buggy and there are no other baby change facilities other than the ones in the disabled loo, then yes, she is as limited as a disabled person in where she can go to change her baby.

People are turning the debate into something it isn't. W aren't being anti disabled people....simply pointing out that other users can use disabled loos if necessary...I've, if all cubicles are taken up and disabled one is free or if they need to change their baby.

No where did i say that? I have talked about access to facilities and the provision NOT a comparison of what either group is able to do or not do.

I just the said that the facilities that both both groups need to use are located in one place so surely need to be shared.

If I shouldn't use the changing table in the toilet or the family changing room/shower what should I do? The way in which may venues provide such facilities mean that either group does not have exclusive use as they are dual purpose facilities.

The key was in the use of the word SHARE.

Feelingood this is a conversation about people using disabled toilets for their own use not to change a nappy. It also applies to all disabled toilets not just those with changing facilities in them. Some people believe that having a pram with them gives them a right to use them.

Sorry my bad, I didn't read the first line of your post

Loopydoo disabled toilets are not provided as an overflow for the ladies if all the cubicles are full you wait.

Not in a million years. Why take the risk? Even if it is absolutely minuscule, I would still rather eliminate the risk rather than have the opinion "the risk is so small that it won't happen", because it could. It being harm coming to your DC.

That's not written very well. Sorry!

But if I change a nappy in the dual use toilet then i most likely have a quick pee after.

I said up thread i keep door open, for example i use the end toilet at the gym if I just need to go as I can leave the door ajar without exposing myself.

If I am in town there is a separate baby change and I know the two end toilets I can fit the buggy in too so use those. I am able to wait for these.

If I am in House of Fraser I use the disabled one as that is where the changer is and yes I have a quick pee after.

My DM has reduced mobility and with a stick and has limited use of one arm, she is not in a wheel chair but absolutely cannot manage without the arm rest to lever herself up on. I have plenty stops to plan when we shop together.

Has the RADAR system not helped? A member of staff saw me waiting outside ladies for my DS with my buggy and asked if i needed the key - this was earlier in the Slug and Lettuce? Prior to this we were at Sealife, I did use the disabled as there was no way I was leaving my baby unattended and there was no way i could have got buggy into ladies even without blocking two cubicles.

I feel I use my common sense. T o expect people to leave babies unattended is unreasonable.

I agree with feelinggood*

"The spiteful language that's used when referring to a parent's concerns about safety " pweshus babas", "entitled" parents thinking that the streets are filled with "hoards of marauding baby snatchers" is hurtful because it hints at a deeper resentment."

What deeper resentment? I am really uncomfortable about what that implies.

The bottom line about this never-ending argument is that nothing changes. I have seen the odd person on threads like this say "you know what, I'd never registered how important these facilities are. I've popped in before, but I won't do it again" but those who take the time to argue their points are the ones with the most entrenched views, and they're not going to back down.

The people who are arguing that they have a right to use these facilities clearly aren't going to stop doing it. And the people they are arguing with have no power to either force them to stop, or grant them permission to do so. So all these people are arguing for is for everyone else to stop thinking badly of them. They want to do what they want, and not be confronted with the disapproval of others. I can only assume that the continued passionate defence of what they are doing is because deep down they know it's wrong, and they don't like feeling bad about it and want someone else to tell them it's okay.

The people who feel that these facilities should be kept available for those with a genuine medical need for them are not suddenly going to decide that it's not so important. They're not going to give that permission or tell other people that it's okay. They're going to carry on thinking badly of those who use these facilities without a legitimate need to do so.

So if you choose to carry on using these facilities, even after all the reasons not to have been laid out for you by those in the best position to assess their usefulness, then that's what you are going to do, and nothing anyone else can say is going to change that. But don't expect people not to tut and glare and think you are entitled and selfish. Because that's what they're going to do and nothing you can say is going to change that.

I have two small children. I do not use disabled toilets because I am an able-bodied, competent human being who is capable of coming up with a solution to my needs that does not impact on anyone else.

Make your choices, by all means, but don't then have a hissy fit because it's not all smiles and sunshine and people gazing at you and your adorable children with an expression of gentle benevolence.

kungfupand it's the kind of language that's often used (along with things like pfb) to dismiss parents' concern/ worry / care as insignificant. Whenever I read comments like this, they're seen on many threads I feel upset about the underlying message which seems to be a dislike for the DCs of other ppl or a distaste for parents. Maybe I haven't explained it very well, but when I hear ppl talk like that in RL there appears to be a sense of slight disgust about parents fawning over their kids.
I find it upsetting.
A dislike of mothers. And it so commonly comes from women.

You see kungfupanda your last line about "your adorable children" my DCs are adorable to me. I adore them. But that's cause for derision.
I assume you adore your children. It wouldn't occur to me to dismiss any concern about them as you being fussy or precious. But lots of ppl do speak and write like that. What is at the root of it? It's very common on MN and aibu in particular. It's not just on this thread.

What a cheek.

I love little children and have loads of friends who are mothers.

What I don't love is people who put a frankly miniscule risk that can be got round above the care of my child and bullishly override her needs causing her REAL problems.

Even insisting when I have outlined what happens to her on here. And others have.

Even though others have explained ways to get round this miniscule tiny risk you still say things like "if a stranger snatched my child I might wee my pants".

Which to those of us struggling with disabilities or disabled children seems somewhat pathetic.

Plus you all refuse to acknowledge there are millions of parents out there so if all did as you did it would cause real problems for us.

No secret deep resentment of parents or children here.