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.

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:
UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 01/12/2013 15:07

I'm assuming CFS has carried out a risk assessment unlike the great and good of Mumsnet.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:08

Breast feeders wanted equality. They got it and had it written in laws. But now you want different and special treatment when it suits you and only you. Confused,

hermioneweasley · 01/12/2013 15:09

YABU. Go next year if you really can't be away for a day.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:12

Again, it is not the child that is being discriminated against it is the mother. The flower show is not a dangerous place. If it is then they shouldn't be letting anyone in without specialist training and equipment. The potential to be bored is not an excuse for discrimination.

Bf is protected by law.
A rule is being enforced which disproportionately affects one group of people, bf mothers, therefore it is discriminatory.

Just get over it.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:13

Giles equality doesn't mean being treated the same. it means being given equal opportunities.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:15

But you don't have to give it up ffs. You just have to do what EVERY other parent has to do. Find a sitter, plan your day around feeds or don't go. Funnily enough people manage it for work, weddings, and nights out with their family/husband.

There is absolutely no bloody reason why not being able to take your baby somewhere is discriminatory. Ffs

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:17

Pregnant women aren't allowed to go on roller coasters. Isn't that discriminatory too? Hmm

IamInvisible · 01/12/2013 15:17

I am disabled and as thus a group protected by law. But I also accept that there are places where I can not go. We went to Drayton Manor, for example, I got into the park but couldn't go in the rides. That is not discrimination. Not all buildings are accessible, FFS, that's life.

If a BF can't be away from its mother for a day it's going to be bloody interesting implementing the new ML laws where the dad can have 6months too.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:18

Yes it is. Most bf mother's would just not go because their child needed feeding every few hours or they didn't take a bottle. Something parents of older children or ff children wouldn't have to do.

That is discrimination because it does not allow for equal opportunity.

Sallyingforth · 01/12/2013 15:19

This rule makes it harder for bf mothers to attend. Fact.
More nonsense.
The rule means that mothers cannot take children. Whether they are fed by breast, bottle or spoon is irrelevant.

There are two sorts of posters on this thread - those who have been to Chelsea, and those who have not. Without exception, everyone who has been to Chelsea and seen what it is like has agreed that it is unsuitable for children: the rule is correct.

Please don't pontificate on something you have not experienced.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:19

But a ff baby still needs feeding. And not everyone has family. Perhaps single parents of ff babies should be allowed to go

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:19

I agree that in all discrimination laws there are caveats for reasonable adjustments and safety.

Please enlighten me as to what is so dangerous about looking at flowers?

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:22

Erm some are toxic perhaps? Some some stain clothes, a baby could choke on a berry it pulled off when mummy wasn't looking. Allergies... Oh and of course the hundreds of other people that may trip or fall into you or trip you over

fatlazymummy · 01/12/2013 15:24

I wouldn't have been able to attend either, and I formula fed (mainly). I didn't have a baby sitter.
There are lots of other places I couldn't go to, for that reason. Tough - parents have to make sacrifices sometimes.
Common sense tells us not to take babies into certain places. I would no sooner take a baby to the CFS (based on reports from people who have been) than I would take them to Walmarts on black friday. Both too crowded, and potentially dangerous for a baby/young child.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:25

Giles then it is too dangerous for the older children and all other visitors too.

Sorry but this just smacks of laziness. There is absolutely no reason why a babe in arms couldn't attend.

Farahilda · 01/12/2013 15:25

If the baby will be 7 months old by CFS, s/he can be only about 1 month old now. Far too early to predict whether this specific child can be left - because it's something that isn't invariably true of BF babies, nor invariably untrue of FF ones.

Sallyingforth · 01/12/2013 15:27

Please enlighten me as to what is so dangerous about looking at flowers?
This is just getting silly! Haven't read what everyone who has been there has said? When I've been to Chelsea I've been pushed, shoved, elbowed and had my feet trodden on. In the tents it's sometimes hard to breathe. It's not an environment for babies, even in a sling.

Talkinpeace · 01/12/2013 15:28

so, gigs with no under 16 rules .....

Caitlin17 · 01/12/2013 15:28

Soapbox I think it's you who needs to get over it.

The rule is there for a very good reason but you won't accept that.

Even if it weren't ( i.e. a child free hotel) it's still legal.

Seriously, do you think there should be no events ever which can exclude under 5s? If not how does the gate distinguish between a permitted bf and a ff trying to sneak in? (I suppose the halo is the give away)

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 15:31

Laziness? Actually I think it smacks of stupidity that people can't contemplate that actually they are better off not taking a baby somewhere. There are plenty if options available for parents both bf and ff. You cannot decide to never leave your baby and expect everything in the world to pander to you.

There are limits to accessibly for everyone for everywhere. I can't go to many places because I can't afford to go. I don't drive. I have two children. All of which means that I miss out in many things but funnily enough I know that and don't expect the red carpet rolled out because of my choices.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:32

Then the organisers need to make it safe for all.

or do they also discriminate against the elderly and infirm? Maybe a list of medical conditions should be posted so sufferers of specific conditions know they are not welcome for their own safety.

No matter how you try to justify the discrimination it disproportionately affects bf mums. I could also add for no good reason but there is rarely a good reason for discrimination.

If there are safety concerns for small babies being carried then they will also be concerns for other visitors. What have the organisers done to address this? By the sounds of it not much because the people who have been on here seem to think it is an annual problemGrin

IamInvisible · 01/12/2013 15:34

According to this article it is not discriminatory.

It reads "Step in the government's long-overdue equality bill. This will make it illegal to discriminate against a woman for breastfeeding. If you're allowed into a shop, or a bus, or a cafe with your baby, then you'll be allowed to breastfeed, and it'll be against the law for someone to stop you. This should make a real difference."

So the main point being "If you're allowed in............... with your baby, you're allowed to breastfeed." But the OP, or anyone else, is being allowed in with their baby.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 15:38

I shall say it for the umpteenth time. It is not, I repeat not, the child who is being discriminated against it is the mother. If the changes that needed to be made were disproportionate then they would have a case but they are not. If there was a significant danger then again there would be a case but there isn't. If it is so crowded that people are being elbowed and hurt then the organisers need to do something about it for all visitors.

I personally wouldn't go or take my child but their is a difference between me making a choice not to go and being unable to go.

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 01/12/2013 15:38

I have hay fever, CFS should remove all pollen to cater for my requirements. Oh, and I hate large crowds, so they should get rid of them too.

Talkinpeace · 01/12/2013 15:38

soapbox
I so, so so look forward to your posts in 13 years time when you are getting shitty about 8 year olds at the gigs your teenagers want to attend