Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 ··· 28 29 30 ··· 33 34

Original poster

To want to set the record straight about the Cedar Falls Nurse In

841 replies

Mamagiraffe · 14/07/2014 13:27

I am organising the peaceful protest OUTSIDE THE GATES of Cedar Falls. The protest is not taking place because Victoria tried to take an under 16 to an age-restricted place expecting special treatment it is because the spa have cancelled her booking rather than allowing her to make alternative arrangements. Whatever has happened in the past is immaterial and I am horrified by the muck-raking and bullying instigated here last night. I, personally, do not condone the online attack on their Facebook page but that is of course up to the individual., I have also requested members of the event to remove any they may have already posted but I have no power to do so. For those who are uninformed breastfeeding at 1 is not only recommended but it aids nutrition, soothing and attachment- for Victoria's child they may or may not have required a feed during this weekend but provision needed to be in place to facilitate this and it would be unfair for the child not to ensure this is possible, this does not mean that a nursing mother must be sequestered away from living a normal adult life for the duration. The rights regarding discrimination is to protect the right of the breastfeeding mother to do so. I won't be returning here to fight the fight but as MNHQ deleted the last thread I have had to start my own to give you my own twopence'th if anybody wants to contact us for more information the email address is [email protected]

OP posts:

Thread gallery

HaroldLloyd · 15/07/2014 18:18

It seems daft to post feeding pictures when this wasn't a feeding issue, but ither the that I have no issue with who wants to post them wherever they want.

pinksquidgy · 15/07/2014 18:19

Sorry sizzles, the first bit was directed at you but not the second. But I just don't think it's 'embarrassing' to have pics of tits that are feeding a baby in pretty much any context. Or if it is, that's society's fault, and any bfing mother would be helped in the long run by people just getting over it.

Completely see that CF seem to have come in for wrong-headed criticism and Facebook page spamming here and agree that that's not on, but it's not the pics of breasts that are the problem, it's the wrong-headed targetting of the business. IMO.

EarthWindFire · 15/07/2014 18:21

What's wrong with pictures of boobs?

Nothing at all, but it isn't relevant on a health farm Facebook page to push a point about them being not welcome in an adult only environment.

seagull70 · 15/07/2014 18:21

I agree with MNHQ always wanted to be a teachers pet

In that some of the attacks are getting too personal and there is a difference (albeit a slight one) between attacking a company and attacking an individual.

Neither are ideal and she started it but this thread is in danger of becoming disproportionate.

I think that she is a silly, misguided moo with an unpleasant streak but I am pretty sure she's learnt her lesson.

Continued personal attacks against her and her business are just nasty, especially if (if) she has withdrawn her attacks against CF? Has she?

How would you feel if her business failed as a result of this thread or if her kids were bullied at school?

Goodadvice1980 · 15/07/2014 18:21

I think MNHQ seemed rather too bothered about "protecting" the daft woman who started all this (from her PUBLIC fb page). She chose to court the publicity, so I do not see why the first thread was deleted.

From previous comments she has chosen to make PUBLICALLY it would appear that she is a rabble-rouser, but she is not to keen to have it given back to her.

I think she has caused a great dis-service to other women who will undoubtedly now face criticism for bfing in public. She hasn't helped the cause one bit.

LinesThatICouldntChange · 15/07/2014 18:21

No issues with bf here, or with body hair. But I do think using photos of your bf child simply to try to discredit a business is wrong on every level. Quite apart from the fact that CF have not broken the law, I think it's pretty disrespectful to use your child to try to score some sort of point

merrymouse · 15/07/2014 18:22

there does seem to be an undertone of 'urgh bitty' in some people's posts

I haven't read all the posts so perhaps you are right. However, I'd rather a little disgust on mumsnet than this story reaching the wider media and being seen as representative of women who breast feed/extended breast feed/use reusable sanitary products.

It's not so much the boobs as their reason for being there.

EarthWindFire · 15/07/2014 18:22

Continued personal attacks against her and her business are just nasty, especially if (if) she has withdrawn her attacks against CF? Has she?

Who knows, some of her posts still exist.

pinksquidgy · 15/07/2014 18:22

DOn't want to get into trouble by singling anyone out Molly but IMO it is there in some of the posts - accusing bfing women of being attention-seekers and so on. I bfd for bloody years though so I am possibly over sensitive on this point

Staywithme · 15/07/2014 18:23

sizzles

It is against the law to prevent a mother from breast feeding but it is not against the law to prevent children from entering an adult only venue. Some of the furious and misinformed were accusing CF of breaking the law as they wouldn't permit the mother to feed her toddler on their premises. However it is an ADULT only venue meaning she couldn't breast feed a child on the premises, due to that fact, means no law was broken.

A breast feeding mother can be asked to leave any premise if her behaviour is deemed inappropriate or she breaks the rules of the place if business. An example of that might be a woman breast feeding but verbally abusing staff can be ejected. The fact that she would be asked to leave would have nothing to do with breast feeding but to do with her behaviour, therefore no law has been broken.

pinksquidgy · 15/07/2014 18:24

Agree with seagull I'm sure the woman concerned wishes to god she'd never started this now and CF have had oodles of lovely free publicity on a massive website. Not sure there's anything to be gained by continuing to give this woman a pasting

TwistedReach · 15/07/2014 18:30

I agree that targeting a business is not nice but I'm amazed by the response here. So she asked if they would let her bf- so what? I don't see that as entitled at all. I see it as trying to see if a compromise between wanting to go out and wanting to feed her baby was possible. To then be told she can't even feed in the car and to lose the whole trip is extraordinary. My child is nearly grown so I have no axe to grind- I could barely bf anyway. But to begrudge a mother asking to feed her child in the car? How mean.

Sizzlesthedog · 15/07/2014 18:30

Pink, I bf for a looong time. I am totally pro bf and support any woman's right to bf wherever she wanted to. Babies/children sucking is a precious moment and beautiful. But some of the pics were sensational. Knowing this particular business well, their fb page isn't the place for the pics.

EarthWindFire · 15/07/2014 18:32

Agree with seagull I'm sure the woman concerned wishes to god she'd never started this now and CF have had oodles of lovely free publicity on a massive website. Not sure there's anything to be gained by continuing to give this woman a pasting

Maybe you are right. I don't think in would hurt for her to say on the FB page that she was wrong as there are still people fighting her corner over there.

browneyedgirl86 · 15/07/2014 18:36

I just think it's weird to post pictures of
your boobs on a business FB page. I don't think
its relevant. It doesn't make the point any stronger. I think in the context they are posting pictures actually weakens their argument.

I breastfed, didn't and wouldn't feel the need to share pictures of it on social media. Fair enough those that want to, each to their own but I'm not comfortable posting intimate snaps of my body online, least of all to try and make a point to an adult only establishment. Showing pictures of it doesn't strengthen the argument. To the same token posting pictures of your child being bottle fed would also be irrelevant. CFs policy is crystal clear. No under 16s. If the customer doesn't like it, they can choose an alternative.

That's just my two cents.

merrymouse · 15/07/2014 18:37

twisted, it is generally suspected that there was more to the cancellation than has been revealed. It appears that permission to breastfeed was not only requested, but there was also some misguided discussion of human rights or the law preceding the cancellation.

Personally I don't care what this woman does to earn a crust - whatever keeps the wolf from the door - but I do object to people whipping up this kind of campaign in the name of breastfeeding women because I think it is damaging.

However, it seems to have blown over now. As seagull says, she was a bit of a silly moo who got in over her head.

pinksquidgy · 15/07/2014 18:38

Twisted I think the thing is that it's not clear how CF came to cancel the booking completely. If they did cancel JUST because she asked to feed in the car then I think that's out of order myself.

Fair enough earth. If this was me I'd be hiding under the sofa at this point and not checking my FB at all Plus some people don't really get around to apologising until everyone's stopped having a go at them my DH is like this and it drives me loopy

seagull70 · 15/07/2014 18:40

earthwind I haven't got access to her FB anymore but if she hasn't retracted or deleted her original comments then she's playing a dangerous game.

The silence of Cedar Falls is potentially quite ominous.

But what are we trying to achieve here?

I think we have made the point re breast feeding, supported a wrongly aligned business, educated others on the true meaning of discrimination, dealt with the hordes of misinformed idiots on the CF Facebook page, had a good laugh, bagged ourselves a nice 10% discount (thanks guys!) and a few mumsnetters have even struck up personal friendships.

This is mumsnet at its best but continuing to post comments which could well end up destroying a business, a person (albeit one I have little sympathy with) is mumsnet at its worst

pinksquidgy · 15/07/2014 18:45

Hey do you reckon if one of us started a pretend social media monstering of Champneys or Babington House or the Marrakesh Hilton we could end up with a discoutn there as well? [forms plan]

seagull70 · 15/07/2014 18:47

Pink - I really NEED a spa break in The Maldives

EarthWindFire · 15/07/2014 18:48

Her comments were still on the CF page earlier, under people's reviews, although they may have gone now.

merrymouse · 15/07/2014 18:48

Good post seagull

NewtRipley · 15/07/2014 18:49

Nobody knows why the booking was cancelled

It was assumed by the VL that it was due to BF request. Assumed.

Staywithme · 15/07/2014 18:51

twisted

If CF had given her permission to breast feed on their premises at all then they could not have dictated WHERE she could feed as that would then be breaking the law. In theory she could have stood in the middle of reception to bf. That's where the trouble would have started as they run an adult only business and I for one would have been irked to find a child there as I would be there to get away from children!

The lady had, allegedly, already asked to do the same thing at an adult only retreat and ended up keeping the baby overnight, pissing off the other participants.

EarthWindFire · 15/07/2014 18:51

Good post seagull

Agreed

Flip

1 2 ··· 28 29 30 ··· 33 34