Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Claridges Breastfeeding Policy

638 replies

ifgrandmahadawilly · 02/12/2014 20:31

Aibu in posting this here, in the hopes that the people of mumsnet let Claridges know how unreasonable they are being?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11267989/Mother-forced-to-cover-up-with-large-napkin-while-breastfeeding-at-Claridges.html

OP posts:
PterodactylTeaParty · 03/12/2014 13:02

What really gets me about this story is that you cannot even see any part of this woman's breasts. You don't even have to take her word for it, the picture of her feeding the baby without the napkin is right there! There is not one bit of breast visible.

But no, cue 8000 comments in every newspaper article about this (and some on here too) about women getting their breasts out, people not wanting to see breasts, shouldn't have to see exposed breasts in public tsk tsk. Do people all have x-ray vision or something? The only bit of skin you can see is her forearm ffs.

BeCool · 03/12/2014 13:03

Claridges weren't asking the lady to stop, they were asking her to be considerate to others.

perhaps Claridges should have simply reminded the "others" about the very special powers we all have to NOT look at things that may cause our tender selves offence.

PortofinoVino · 03/12/2014 13:04

I really hope Claridges are prosecuted

Nothing they have done or said is against the law. Why would they be prosecuted?

BeCool · 03/12/2014 13:08

if they have breached the equality legislation then I hope they are prosecuted.

wasabipeanut · 03/12/2014 13:12

This is just beyond absurd. Places shouldn't need breastfeeding "policies." An infant needs to eat and drink. They should be able to do that when required. There should just be an assumption that its fine. Jesus, wtf is wrong with people?

Poor woman. Shame she couldn't walk out. I'd have have hit the roof and if my DH had been with me in that situation he'd have told them to go and stuff themselves.

tiktok · 03/12/2014 13:17

Porto, it would make an interesting test case, I grant you. Discrimination in services to women because of breastfeeding is not allowed - so I suppose if Claridges ask mothers who are bottle feeding to take a huge linen napkin and feed their baby under it, there is no discrimination, because each mother is being treated to the same utterly ludicrous policy.

Of course Claridges should be mindful of the comfort of all their customers. Anyone expressing discomfort or embarrassment at the sight of a mother breastfeeding (not at the sight of breasts, in this case, 'cos you couldn't see anything!) can be shown to a different chair, perhaps.

Or, maybe, just told to grow up a bit.

Lots of things have the potential to make people uncomfortable in restaurants - I have a terrible thing about seeing people take a bite out of a cake and then leave it untouched....it's the WASTE!! But you know....I just don't look! I'd be mad if I asked the waiter to go and hide the bitten cake under a napkin.

Gruntfuttock · 03/12/2014 13:17

I'm still stunned by the post upthread comparing this woman breastfeeding to standing in the middle of the restaurant and changing a bloody tampon!
It's just unbelievable.

ScrambledSmegs · 03/12/2014 13:19

But she was being discreet Confused. I've seen the photo, you honestly can't see anything apart from some slightly rumpled clothing.

From the information we've been given it looks like Claridges were being over-zealous. Obviously we don't know what precipitated their request, if she'd been waving her boob around in the open in order to get the baby to latch on then I can understand it. However I really doubt that she did that. Nobody I've ever met uses breastfeeding as a form of self-exposure.

bigbluestars · 03/12/2014 13:23

tiktok, bottle feeding a baby is not covered by gender discrimination laws, because men can bottle feed too.

If the hotel had hypotheticallytried to ban the feeding of babies the fact that they are banning formula feeding babies would not exempt them from the law- that is breastfeeding women still have the right to breastfeed in public.

Although we have the same gender discrimination laws in SCotland we also have a crimilnal law which protects the right of the infant to be publically "fed milk"- breast or bottle.

hippogrillapig · 03/12/2014 13:24

Eh she was that upset she managed to pose smiling for pictures and posting them on twitter.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was another one of those attention seeking types just waiting for someone to say something so she could howl 'discrimination' it's happening a hell of a lot these days.

SuperFlyHigh · 03/12/2014 13:26

hippo I agree at the risk of being flamed she was being quite blatant and "this is my right" on a TV programme (London Tonight?). which of course it was but...

Coupled with the fact her SO is an actor, she too maybe is...?

NancyRaygun · 03/12/2014 13:27

just waiting for someone to say something so she could howl 'discrimination' it's happening a hell of a lot these days

so? If there is discrimination, then there is discrimination. Who cares about motive?

HangingInAGruffaloStance · 03/12/2014 13:28

This "older people might be offended" stuff is bollocks. The older people of today were young in the 1960s!

My parents are in their 70s and couldn't give a fuck about breastfeeding in public, other than to possibly crowd the Mum in question as they fuss over the baby. My Nana would be in her nineties if she was still with us, breastfed her own three children and loved reminiscing about her own early years as a mother when she saw wee babies.

People who have issues about the idea that behind a baby's head, somewhere in the room, there is a Shock breast have issues, independent of age. Same goes for people who confuse/conflate toileting with eating.

I hate this red herring stuff about indiscreet breastfeeding. A fussy baby might cause the odd flash of nipple (if someone is looking) but the vast majority of breastfeeding mothers, including every one I have ever encountered, make an effort to get on with the job in hand. When a baby is feeding, the nipple is covered - no "flashing" Smile

Sandberry · 03/12/2014 13:28

I have no children and if I see a baby being breastfed in a restaurant I am happy they are saving me money by reducing my tax bill.

I think it is really easy for all the 'I wouldn't piss in a restaurant' folks. It is not because breastfeeding is natural that it is fine to do it in a restaurant it is because it is eating and we eat in a restaurant whether we are babies eating from bottle or breast or adults eating tea and cakes and I imagine that Claridges don't have a routine policy of covering all customer's heads with cloth napkins while they eat.
We piss in the loo, so changing baby's nappies in the loos fine, eating there not so much, unless you're suggesting everyone should move to the loos to consume their food if they wish to do so without napkins on their heads.

As for 'discreet', I assume 99.9% (quite possibly 100%) of breastfeeding mothers don't wish to strip naked and throw their breasts in the faces of fellow customers, they are simply feeding their baby in the way that best meets their own and their babies' needs, ie they are being as 'discreet' as possible for their own comfort. If it doesn't happen to meet my definition of discreet then I can move, turn my chair or get over it.

pinkfrocks · 03/12/2014 13:29

But she was being discreet confused. I've seen the photo, you honestly can't see anything apart from some slightly rumpled clothing.

Naive or what? The photo was clearly staged, otherwise how come it was taken at the time of the rumpus? Did she just happen to have a camera man at the ready?

Nancy66 · 03/12/2014 13:30

Hanging- you can't speak for every old person.

My grandfather died last year at the age of 92 but, I think, if a young woman had started breastfeeding opposite him on a train then it would have made him uncomfortable. I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything but he would have been embarrassed.

pinkfrocks · 03/12/2014 13:31

PterodactylTeaParty Wed 03-Dec-14 13:02:16
What really gets me about this story is that you cannot even see any part of this woman's breasts. You don't even have to take her word for it, the picture of her feeding the baby without the napkin is right there! There is not one bit of breast visible.

Yep- very clever staged photo long after the actual event perhaps? Why would a mother suddenly think they must have themselves photographed and contact a paper?

hippogrillapig · 03/12/2014 13:31

it's all a big publicity stunt as usual. Nobody cares about mothers Breastfeeding it's the militant types who are screaming discrimination who then appear on local news and twitter.

It's just one big load of attention seeking twaddle. But the this is mumsnet and mumsnetters love nothing more than being outraged at something.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 03/12/2014 13:37

It doesn't matter if she was being discreet. The baby was eating, in a restaurant, that's what they're for (the restaurant and the breasts).

Loulou000 · 03/12/2014 13:37

Claridges ABU.
I'm glad she was smiling in the pictures, and not spitting and clawing as I would have been in her position.
Why would a baby want to eat with a napkin over it? And why are people so afraid of seeing a bit of boob? Not that you can see it, anyway.

PterodactylTeaParty · 03/12/2014 13:38

Yep- very clever staged photo long after the actual event perhaps?

She's clearly still in the restaurant in the picture.

Why would a mother suddenly think they must have themselves photographed and contact a paper?

Did she? I thought she posted something about it on her Twitter account, which is hardly "alert the newspapers!".

More to the point: why would you assume that she's lying? Claridges haven't said she was, and she's hardly breastfeeding in an unusual way - that looks like most public breastfeeding I've ever seen.

Loulou000 · 03/12/2014 13:39

Naive or what? The photo was clearly staged, otherwise how come it was taken at the time of the rumpus? Did she just happen to have a camera man at the ready?

Um... maybe her, you know, phone, had, like, a camera on it?

leedy · 03/12/2014 13:40

I do love this straw woman of the exhibitionistic breastfeeder who CARES NOT FOR INDISCRETION and WHACKS THEM OUT (special bonus marks if "THEY" are BIG AND EWWWWW VEINY NOT PROPER SEXXXXY BOOBS FOR NICE LOOKING AT) because they LOVE THE ATTENTION. Seriously, unless you were actually trying* to wave your boobs around, or took off all your clothes or something, you can see fuck all, you don't need to be taking some kind of staged photo for people to only see a baby's head. Even with a madly fussy wriggly baby the "worst" you might get is a very quick flash of nipple. I don't know anyone who BF in public because they liked the attention, they just wanted to feed their baby. They might even think - gasp!- that the baby won't wait! Because they're a baby and don't know they're in Claridges and are going ballistic with hunger! Mad, isn't it?

I'm also really baffled/amused at the BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OLD PEOPLE! element on this thread. The only person who has ever commented on me BF in all my years of BF in public was a very posh elderly lady who came over to tell me "JOLLY well done!".

I have been BF for almost five years now. THEY are of reasonable size, not notably veiny, and frankly one of my better features. hoiks approvingly*

tiktok · 03/12/2014 13:42

bigblue, I know the law in this situation.....she was not being 'prevented' from bf, she was being offered a different 'service' because she was bf.

This is what would make it an interesting test case.

This was no publicity stunt, BTW.

leedy · 03/12/2014 13:43

"Um... maybe her, you know, phone, had, like, a camera on it?"

Yes, strangely enough in these modern times people can take quite high quality photos without having a professional cameraman do it. I hear some people even "take them themselves!" and put them on something called "the internet".

Perhaps some people are posting from the nineteenth century. It could explain much.