AIBU to expect parents to keep autistic son safe in supermarket?

[middleagedbread]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2936089/Parents-seven-year-old-autistic-boy-asked-leave-Iceland-not-controlling-son-running-aisles.html

I've checked and can't see this thread started anywhere else. I think that the security guard was within his rights to ask both parents to supervise their son or leave store and I don't see where they were being discriminated against. The £20 'apology' from the store after they complained isn't enough it seems; they want com-pen-say-shun. Cue sadfaced pics in article. I am certain that, should their son have injured himself while not being supervised, these same parents would be featuring in an article about 'unsafe supermarket injured my child'.

Parents of autistic children have enough to cope with without these sort of negative articles.

Perhaps I was quick to judge. I apologise if my comment upset some. It was not the intention.

I do not like judging parents with children with SN, regardless of what SN they have. Goodness knows if have been judged many a time when out with my DS. I have seen families IRL use their children's SN as a reason to not reprimand or stop a behaviour. Whether it is because they are too exhausted, have given up or just cant be bothered, it isnt for me to judge.

At 5 year old he climbed inside an empty chiller in Tesco, lay down and pretended to be a sausage. To the outside world he would have looked like a child with zero respect, putting his shoed feet in the chiller, to me it brought me to tears as it was the first time ever he did imaginary play.

Fanjo and MrsD, I have you as FB friends and would hope you don't think badly of me IRL, I'm not usually judgy.

I too didn't really read any names just saw quite a few judgy posts.

Don't beat yourself up. The article was spun to induce maximum judging

Was it the op who made the labelled as disabled comment? If so that tells you exactly why the thread was started.

yes it was, and it has been deleted,
says it all really

I wouldn't dream of judging the parents of a child who was still in nappies and unable to have a little chat about Orcas.

I have that child. Being his mum is bloody hard work and not just because of the random poo bombs. Almost as hard as being mum to the one who can monologue on the history of the thrupenny bit. For starters, he's quite convinced that the one who can't have a little chat about orcas needs to be eradicated....

Apples and oranges.

Polter. .fair enough. He didn't come across like that to me but could well be.

I guess we can only surmise that if he does that his sensory needs must be quite large whatever his DX.

Judging definitely not needed.

That last bit was a general point of course.

Typical Daily Mail article.

I am on the side of Iceland (which pains me because I would rather starve than shop there ). It is not safe for kids (or anyone else) to run round in supermarkets - what for example if they bump into and knock over an old person. Who will be suing who then?

Basic safety rules have to apply to everyone alike. Kids need controlling in supermarkets. It is bloody hard work!

The fact that the child can't help it and the parents are doing their best, doesn't mean that the shop has to accept the behaviour.
Causing damage or putting other people at risk, is unacceptable and a disability has no bearing to that.
It was perfectly reasonable to ask the family to leave.

Fucking awful thread.

Just about sums MN up these days though.

Maybe some of you would be better suited to the DM comments page.

Complete with snobby comments about shopping in Iceland.

So, to sum up, there are those who think IANBU and there are those who think IABU. Tis has been an interesting discussion and, yet again, on this fabulous forum, mn, can we feel free to speak frankly, from the heart, on an issue we care about. Who cares that we have differing views, it is being able to debate that is the key .

I've never questioned his disability, (the article states he is autistic) if you assumed that, you were mistaken.

The point of the thread was to discuss the newspaper article. Thought that was obvious.

Up, do you think I was unreasonable to expect the parents to keep their child safe in the supermarket?

Up, do you believe the parents were right to allow their child's name and photo to be published in an attempt to get more money out of the supermarket. I call that exploitation (and yes, the journalist exploited the parents need for money from the shop too).

You said " who they have labelled as disabled".

Also you have no idea if their motive was financial or otherwise.

Also you cannot say they did not want their child to be safe.

And finally it's a pretty unpleasant subject to choose to start a fun debate ok.

And to try to keep gping once people have been upset.

*fun debate ON

You very much questioned his disability, claiming that this was a label applied to him by his parents.

Who cares that we have differing views it is being able to debate that is the key smile

Well no, not really, not when those differing views are just an excuse to lambast other parents and their children who are struggling with complex disabilities.

The op was either questioning his disability or saying that having a disability is something to be ashamed of. Either of which are unpleasant views.