Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

In wanting to take a breastfeeding baby to Chelsea flower show

252 replies

roweeena · 01/12/2013 09:38

I was just about to book tickets to Chelsea flower show for my mum and sister as an Xmas present but I have just noticed that no under 5's allowed and no buggies.

I will have a breastfed 7month old who I will not be able to leave at home. I'm happy to carry in a sling - would I really be banned??

Does anyone else have experience of this - I'm shocked that children aren't allowed to be honest. Do you think they would make an exception for a breastfeeding baby?

My other son was a bottle refuser so I haven't tried with this one yet (can't be bothered with thefaff) so I doubt that leaving him with dad and a bottle will really be an option

OP posts:
Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 12:56

Many places discriminate against people who don't drive by being in the middle of no where. Not everything is about pissing people off and excluding them.

My problem I don't drive and can't get there.
My problem if I can't get a sitter

Armadale · 01/12/2013 12:58

I went to Chelsea this year as was given a ticket as a present. I am not claustrophobic in any way yet I found it almost unbearable at times when I was totally hemmed in and felt I was being pushed into walls, cordons etc.

It would be dangerous for young children to be in there. I'm not entirely sure it isn't dangerous for adults, TBH. There are just far too many people allowed in for the size of the grounds.

scaevola · 01/12/2013 12:59

"there were only a few very busy toilets".

This is definitely true (though not as bad as a few years ago)

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:01

:o

So all those outraged mothers of toddlers who wet themselves. And a million aibu -child pissing on buses at CFS threads.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:02

In bushes-not buses

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:03

While discrimination happens in many forms some forms have legislation there to prevent them from happening. Breastfeeding and breastfeeding mothers are one such group.

I breastfed child has an almost total reliance on one person. A ff baby does not. Therefore there is a difference in saying that young babies can't attend in that it almost entirely excludes breastfeeding mothers and not ff mothers.

I'm not debating whether or not other people have perfectly valid reasons why they might not be able to attend such an event due to transport, childcare or funding. however these are not covered in discrimination legislation in this context.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:08
Confused

Plenty of parents are able to leave their bf for a few hours. Some would feed less than a ff fed baby. I don't understand why people do their best to turn a blanket rule for EVERYOne for their own bloody safety in to something specifically aimed at breasts feeding mothers. It's not.

autumnsmum · 01/12/2013 13:12

But soapbox my eldest dd has been in two performances recently that have been ruined by babies crying is it fair that people take babies to theatre shows

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:17

And say they let bf babies in. Imagine all te upset because that discriminates against formula feeders. Disc tomatoes against sick and disabled people who were on meds/having treatment and couldn't bf or the child was prem and couldn't bf either.

And what about all the bf2/3/4 year olds who could go all day and don't need to bf every two hours but have to be allowed to avoid a law suit.

Can't you see how that just wouldn't work at all?

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:18

Disc tomatoes?? Ffs damn phone. Discriminates

autumnsmum · 01/12/2013 13:20

Also when booking how are they going to check if a baby is bf or ff

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:22

Plenty of babies can't be left for even a few hours though. The legislation is there so mothers aren't forced to make that decision. Equality means equal opportunity not keeping everything the same for everyone. A no child rule that includes very young infants disproportionately affects bf mothers should they wish to attend.

If the show itself is a mad crush with few toilets then it is an issue for everyone not just those with young children.

As for the crying child in a theatre, as long as the theatre made it easy for the mothers of the crying child to have the same opportunities to watch the show it wouldn't matter. So they could have a specific show just for people with young children as cinemas do or they could have a sound proof baby room to take children to if they became distressed like my local cinema used to. I'm sure there are other ways for ensuring quality.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:25

They wouldn't need to check if a child was bf or ff.

No children under seven allowed. Babies under one permitted but must be in a carrier.

Simples

Talkinpeace · 01/12/2013 13:25

YABU
Chelsea is as it is.
And its lovely that there are no ankle biters there or howling small things.

It also gets VERY VERY crowded around the show gardens and in the main walkways.
I would only take my kids now that they are the same height as the adults.

There are no plants for sale at Chelsea anyway - its a very different beast than the other shows
Cannot think why you'd WANT to take a kid there.

GrendelsMum · 01/12/2013 13:26

Just to repeat what others have said, I really wouldn't take a small child to
CFS. It is very very crowded, it can be very very hot in the marquee, there are very few spaces to sit down except on the grass areas, etc. it's terrific if you want to look at show gardens, but not if not.

Hampton Court is very different in atmosphere and would be a much mre enjoyable experience for you, I think.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 13:26

But just what is wrong with making somewhere child free? It's nothing to do with how the baby is fed. It's for their own safety and enjoyment of others.

And something people are well aware of and have that choice about whether to go or not.

Your taking it to personally

OddFodd · 01/12/2013 13:31

But presumably by excluding all children, they're not specifically excluding breastfeeding mothers are they?

neunundneunzigluftballons · 01/12/2013 13:31

So women who have bf babies should be excluded from lots of aspects of adult life that their F f counterparts are not. That is what a lot of posters are suggesting here. Personally I see babes in arms as different to older children would could potentially damage displays. We operate an almost completely bf unfriendly society in this part of the world and then we puzzle over poor bf rates. Op you are not being unreasonable.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:33

It's not about the children though. As someone else said up thread it isn't an issue about the children not going.

The discrimination comes because a mother cannot go if she cannot take her child because the child will need to be fed from her and her alone.

Doesn't matter how you slice it. A breastfeeding mother is more affected by this rule than a ff one, the father of the same child or a mother of older children. Therefore it is discriminatory.

Talkinpeace · 01/12/2013 13:34

nothing is stopping OP expressing a days worth of milk and going to the show, leaving the baby with a carer
its what lots of BF working mums do five days a week after all

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:37

She shouldn't have to though. Some babies won't take from a bottle anyway and my two never left anything for me to pump out.Smile

Again it doesn't matter what the alternatives are that the mother could do. The rules as they stand disproportionately affect bf mother's and their ability to attend.

OddFodd · 01/12/2013 13:38

The equality act is about not discriminating against women who are breastfeeding. It doesn't say that you have to allow babies in (when all other children are banned) because they're breastfed.

neunundneunzigluftballons · 01/12/2013 13:39

Talkinpeace that is not supporting bf though is it? Not really?

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 13:44

oddfodd it isn't about the child though. The child isn't being discriminated against, the mother is. If the child can't go, she can't go. Therefore she hasn't been offered the same opportunities as other parents.

janey68 · 01/12/2013 13:47

I think you're trying to make something into an issue which doesn't need to be. There is a blanket rule : no children under 7. That probably means lots of people who might like to go, can't, not because of feeding but because they can't get a babysitter. When I became a parent I accepted that there were certain things I couldn't do any more with a baby in tow- such as attend events which have a lower age limit, and also I wouldn't have inflicted a possibly crying baby in places that I might have been entitled to attend, but where my child could have caused a disturbance to others

I think some people look for discrimination all over the place. They choose to have a child and then expect to be able to go anywhere, do anything, with the child in tow. They wouldn't have given two hoots about a ban on under 7s until their own precious child popped along- in fact they'd probably have appreciated the fact that other people's children weren't going to be a disturbance.

Anyway, surely a 7 month old can drink bm from a cup if they won't take a bottle? That's what many mums do who work and have to leave their babies at that age or younger. Mine weren't huge fans of bottles but tbh it makes no odds from 5 or 6 months when they can drink from a beaker