Mother's have it tough

[Zenab1]

Hello mothers, so I had an incident which left me humiliated and angry today. I went to Chatham House, a policy institution in central london to attend a talk that was happening there. When I get to the conference hall, I was told that I was not allowed to get in with my buggy in which my baby girl was peaceful sleeping. Their main excuse was, it's gonna block the way in case people need to evacuate for emergency. I said but this information is not communicated anywhere on your website and I even called to double check and the person I spoke to said you are mother friendly. Anyway, they insisted that I leave the building because they won't let me in. I got so emotional and told them that was unfair as I came from a long way and the whole thing seemed to me some kind of discrimination. They escorted me out and told me that I should complain if I like to by sending an email. I felt so humiliated and degraded. Do you think this was right ladies, it happening in this day and age and in one of the worlds developed countries, that a mum should be mistreated like this for simple being mum?

Using a buggy and/or having a child is not a protected characteristic under the equality act, therefore the "indirect discrimation" bollocks is just that, bollocks. I do think we can support parents to access certain places but using legal babble makes you look very silly.

What baroness said

Baroness, as the sole carer for my baby on mat leave, unable to use a sling because of back problems and minus a car, I felt like we were pretty dependent on a buggy to get out and about.

Thoughts?

Using a buggy and/or having a child is not a protected characteristic under the equality act, therefore the "indirect discrimation" bollocks is just that, bollocks. I do think we can support parents to access certain places but using legal babble makes you look very silly.

James v Eastleigh Borough Council (1990),
R (E) v JFS (2010),
Bull v Hall (2013))
Are all legal cases which highlight indirect discrimination.

Gender is a protected characteristic under the equality act and a policy that disproportionately disadvantages women is discriminatory. For example a job application with a minimum height restriction of 5'8 will attract more male applicants so it is discriminatory (this was a 1974 US case).

I know what indirect discrimination is, thanks. I don't agree that this is it. I cannot believe you are even trying to suggest that a buggy pushing woman is experiencing indirect discrimination. Being a parent is not a protected characteristic. Honestly, I wonder how many of you who argue this have both pushed a buggy and been a wheelchair user or parented a child who is a wheelchair user. I think you will find that it is not even remotely in the same field.

As a parent, there are some things I cannot access with my child e.g. take a loud infant into the opera. As a disabled person, there are some things I cannot access e.g. sitting in the bulkhead seats of an airplane. Welcome to life where, on occasions, we make adjustments.

OP was told she could not take buggy in for safety reasons. She got upset, argued, and was escorted out.

Chatham House has the following options:

1. Ignore the fire restrictions, get fined and have their insurance cancelled;
2. Knock down walls/widen doorways in their listed building (their website actually states "Please be aware that due to extensive building work, Chatham House is unable to accept any additional external event bookings at this time" so it is possible/probable that they are doing this, but it doesn't help NOW);
3. Demolish their listed building and build a purpose-built, fully accessible building; or
4. Stop all public events entirely.|

OP has the following options:

1. Check in advance specifically whether buggies are acceptable and adapt her plans accordingly;
2. Fold buggy and take baby into lecture; or
3. Decide that not disturbing child/folding buggy is more important than attending the lecture and leave.

Yes, everywhere SHOULD be accessible, but sometimes this simply isn't possible, and the law recognises this.

It isn't indirect discrimination because she was offered a perfectly workable alternative.

Baroness, as the sole carer for my baby on mat leave, unable to use a sling because of back problems and minus a car, I felt like we were pretty dependent on a buggy to get out and about.

Is this the reason the op couldn't get her baby out? No. She didn't want to.

If it was she could have asked for assistance.

For example a job application with a minimum height restriction of 5'8 will attract more male applicants so it is discriminatory (this was a 1974 US case).

did being under 5ft 8 break fire regulations and put other people at greater risk? If not it's not the same

did being under 5ft 8 break fire regulations and put other people at greater risk? If not it's not the same

It was nothing to do with fire restrictions.

It isn't indirect discrimination because she was offered a perfectly workable alternative.

AuntJane, I missed this. What solution was the OP offered?

Please move away from comparing people with mobility problems, and parents with pushchairs.

The fundamental point is this: a person with a disability did not choose to have a disability. It was not a life choice they made, and therefore we as a decent society should, and do, protect the rights of a disabled person to lead their life as they choose, and ensure that reasonable measures are in place to allow that.

Having a child is a life choice. With that choice comes challenges. One of these challenges is acknowledging that life after children is different. Some things are better, some are worse, but almost all things are different.
We cannot reasonably expect the world to revolve around our particular life choices.

Sometimes, you just don't get to do what you want. That's life.

It was nothing to do with fire restrictions.

So not the same. In the case you presented had the employer been able to prove that having someone under 5ft 8im in the job would put people at risk or break existing regulation. The rule would have stood.

It's not the same situation and not comparable.

The OP was told her buggy couldn't go in the hall. The alternative was to take the baby out. Are you saying the venue staff needed to point that out to her? That a women who has a baby is incapable of thinking for herself?

Maybe staff felt self conscious about tell a women what to do with her baby. Especially when the answer was so obvious and she was emotional while accusing them of acting illegally.

Besides which she didn't want to take the baby out. So therefore it's not discrimination. Direct or indirect.

LaurieMarlow You have a disability which affects your use of other methods of transporting your dc so in that instance yes you are dependent on the buggy but I already stated that in my post that does not mean that all mothers are dependent on buggies.

Ok. Can we try an experiment and leave the buggy/disability comparison rabbit hole to one side for a second to answer the following question.

Do you believe that society should become more baby and buggy friendly? Yes/no?

Do you believe that society should become more baby and buggy friendly? Yes/no

Having two kids I ant say I ever had an issue with taking my push chair places. But then I was quite happy to fold it up. So no I don't see an issue.

I do however understand that some buildings can not be modified or changed because of regulations and money. I also get why the law allows some places to be exempt from disability rules about reasonable adjustments because they aren't reasonable.

I think people in general need to be reasonable. The reasonable thing here would have been to take the baby out of the pushchair.

Directly discriminated would be that if a man had wheeled a buggy up, the organisers would have thought "what a lovely father minding his child for the day " and permitted entry. We cannot show that this was the case, but in my experience and opinion this would be the case.

How on earth can you say that that would happen, Maursh? You simply have no basis whatsoever for it. Your allegations about indirect discrimination are also utter nonsense in legal terms.

Yes, you missed that it was nothing to do with the buggy, this was the excuse provided and the OP was escorted off the premises.

Again, Maursh, you are making things up. OP has categorically stated that she refused to take her child out of the buggy, and that was why she wasn't allowed in to the lecture hall. She was escorted off the premises because of her reaction to that, not because she was female, because she had a baby, or because she had a buggy.

Thank the Lord for posters like Maursh, showing a bit of insight and compassion.

Laurie, when you have to rely on a poster who makes up the fact to prove her own thesis, don't you think it's a bit desperate?

Thank God people like LaurieMarlow Maursh!and Lovelybranches still exist

Zen are you actually going to answer people's questions as to what you asked them about on the phone?

And maybe refer back to my comment about inconsistencies in your other posts?

Thank God people like LaurieMarlow Maursh!and Lovelybranches still exist

Thank goodness people that can see a difference between using a buggy and using a wheelchair exist.

And was it ever made clear whether you paid for a ticket on the strength of what they said on the phone (in which case you would have thought there would be talk of a refund), or whether it was a free event?

What you're doing there, OP, is making the classic mistake of assuming that everyone who agrees with you is a living and infallible saint, even when they haven't produced a smidgen of reason or logic to support their view and, in at least one case, are making up the facts to support their thesis.

Why did you bother to ask if you are BU when you are not prepared to entertain even the tiniest possibility that you are?

I thought it was just me seeing that Alice

"Honestly, I wonder how many of you who argue this have both pushed a buggy and been a wheelchair user or parented a child who is a wheelchair user. I think you will find that it is not even remotely in the same field.

As a parent, there are some things I cannot access with my child e.g. take a loud infant into the opera. As a disabled person, there are some things I cannot access e.g. sitting in the bulkhead seats of an airplane. Welcome to life where, on occasions, we make adjustments."

This. When dd was a baby I was not discriminated against when I could not take her to the theatre (age restrictions). By the time she was a wheelchair-using teenager, she would have been discriminated against if the theatre had not made reasonable adjustments. But reasonable adjustments never meant she could just turn up at the door and expect to be accommodated: it meant planning and booking in advance.

ZOMBIE!