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:
soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 21:55

never said that it did

catellington · 01/12/2013 22:00

No I know I mean to talkinpeace

Talkinpeace · 01/12/2013 22:03

catellington
but whatever type of claim you raise, the lawyers will make more than anybody else and probably cost the taxpayer money

Caitlin17 · 01/12/2013 22:06

Soapbox are you still insisting that any venue or event which excludes children is illegally discriminating?

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 22:09

I never said that either.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 01/12/2013 22:18

Soapbox clearly understands how to interpret legislation

Obviously not, otherwise the CFS wouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing, nor would the other thousands of events, venues, hotels, restaurants etc that do so.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 22:28

I've worked in a job where babies are not permitted at all. Ever. Or anyone under the age of 18.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 22:30

Regardless of time of day, how busy it is or whether they are bf or not.

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 22:56

Sorry but situations only change when people challenge them not with legislation. If that were the case then no cases would ever be brought for any reason because the rules would already be followed. Hence why there is also test cases.

Just look at the case of the gay couple who were refused a room at that hotel. The owners thought that they were in the right although the courts found differently.

There are obviously certain situations where safety would over rule the discrimination. However in this instance I still have not heard any safety implications that would not also apply to other groups. They either have to remove the danger or ban all affected groups otherwise it is discrimination. Banning children is not the issue. However not allowing a bf mother (which is a protected characteristic) to bring her child adversely affects her more than others in a similar situation. Therefore she is at a disadvantage and discriminated against.

It won't be an issue because I doubt anyone would bring a case.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 23:04

Again a bf mother is not stopped from going. She would have a child care issue regardless of feeding method. And a baby can be needy and not be put down-able regardless of feeding method.

A parent is quite able to feed before and after the event and/or leave already if she feels the need to.

The part that's different from the other groups of oeople is a) they consent themselves

B) you would see an adult person, wheel chair etc you can however easily miss a baby in a sling

soapboxqueen · 01/12/2013 23:07

It doesn't matter because a bf mother is protected. The others aren't. I agree that a ff baby could be just in need of its mum but it isn't protected in the same way that a bf mother is. Note not the bf infant but the bf mother.

Gileswithachainsaw · 01/12/2013 23:20

Protected doesn't mean you can ignore everything that doesn't suit you.

Caitlin17 · 01/12/2013 23:28

Soapbox I've lost track of what you're on about. It is perfectly permissible prohibit children up to the age of 18 so why are you making such a big fuss about this particular event?

Or is your mission that there should be no age restrictions on any venues because that discriminates against bf?

Nanny0gg · 01/12/2013 23:33

Honestly, Chelsea is lovely. But very, very crowded. Even a baby in a sling could easily be jostled.

Went to a Christmas fair yesterday that was equally crowded. Couldn't get near some of the stalls. Lots of babies, small children and dogs. Must have been miserable for all of them. And why why do people get very small toddlers out of their pushchairs and let them walk when places are so busy? Unbelievably dangerous!

And sometimes, it's nice to go somewhere where children aren't allowed...

Sallyingforth · 01/12/2013 23:35

Gosh soap you really aren't getting this are you.
How many people have to tell you, in how many ways, before you understand?
There is no discrimination against breastfeeding at Chelsea.
ALL children are excluded, as the event organisers are fully entitled to do and for the very good reasons that have been explained to you repeatedly by people who have been to the Show.
No-one at the show is in the least interested in how children are fed, since they are all equally excluded from the Show.
No discrimination exists, however much you try to cloud the issue by quoting legislation that does not apply.
The OP has received and accepted the advice she sought, and has sensibly made alternative arrangements. It's time now to move on.

JeanSeberg · 01/12/2013 23:35

This thread is bizarre... The idea that breast feeders should be allowed to go wherever they like!

Only on MN eh?

Strokethefurrywall · 01/12/2013 23:41

Jaysus, 9 pages on.... the air must be very thin up there on your soapbox eh soapbox??

soapboxqueen · 02/12/2013 00:05

The child isn't discriminated against. The mother is therefore the legislation applies.

Equal treatment isn't equality. It's like saying nobody is allowed to bring their pets in so it's not discriminating against those with guide dogs. Yes the person could make alternative arrangements but why should they have to if it's how they normally go about their business.

I honestly don't know if it could also be applied to adult only hotels and nobody will unless there is a test case. I doubt there will be though.

JeanSeberg · 02/12/2013 06:14

Jesus, you won't let it lie will you?

No kids at CFS. End of. Get over it ffs.

autumnsmum · 02/12/2013 06:47

I was a single parent with dd1 would ihave needed a law saying I had to be able to take her as I had no one to look after her .im glad op has planned a day at Hampton as others have said missing things is part of parenthood

Gileswithachainsaw · 02/12/2013 06:56

Of course people have to make alternative arrangements. That's life. I cannot expect to take my children everywhere and the fact that they are a baby or how they are feed has jack shit to do with anything.

I swear you must be one of those people who sits at hike twisting every rule and regulation so you can make it show it's discriminating against something.

Rules are there for protection.

janey68 · 02/12/2013 07:05

Soapbox is arguing totally from a technical point of view and ignoring common sense. The problem with this is that taking such a militant stance can be counter productive because it totally goes against the spirit of legislation.

Protected characteristics are there to prevent unfair treatment. A woman who even considers bringing a test case against the Chelsea flower show because she has decided that she must take her 7 month old child, and won't consider getting a babysitter and leaving expressed milk in a cup or bottle, must be nuts frankly. Ok, so technically she's a bf mother - she could do extended bf for several years and would continue to be a bf mother- but this is not a situation where she needs to attend with her baby. As many of us have pointed out, there are really simple solutions to this- solutions which ironically every other parent would need to make- ie: making arrangements for the child to be looked after elsewhere.

This sort of attitude would also encourage people to take the piss... Why not take along every 7 month old, 1 year old, 2 year old... After all you could argue that they might need a bf and don't like drinking from a cup ... Who would even know if the mother is bf or not?!!

I think the comparison with a gay couple wanting to book a B and B is completely flawed: that was a clear case of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
This case is about a woman who is perfectly welcome to attend the CFS- she just needs to to what every other parent of young children would do and make arrangements for her child to be cared for

Mushypeasandchipstogo · 02/12/2013 07:17

well said Janey. Do you get it now OP?

Gileswithachainsaw · 02/12/2013 07:25

mushy

The op is fine :)

It's soap that doesn't get it

AuntieStella · 02/12/2013 07:31

"It's like saying nobody is allowed to bring their pets in so it's not discriminating against those with guide dogs."

Suggesting this is even remotely relevant, accurate or pertinent suggests some big misunderstandings.