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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Mother sues for £20k for being discouraged from bf while the wave machine was on

1000 replies

sizeofalentil · 02/05/2016 12:54

Daily Mirror link to the story here.

I'm totally for breastfeeding wherever and whenever, but I wouldn't want to eat my sandwiches in a swimming pool - they are so germy, like a human soup, so not sure a swimming pool with a wave machine on would be the best place to bf. Plus, obviously in this case there was the waves.

I realise that getting out of the water, especially if she had other kids, with a hungry baby would be a massive faff, but wouldn't the wave machine splash the baby and make it choke?

Serious question: AIBU to think this? Is bf in a swimming pool a done thing? Genuinely curious.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
SoupDragon · 06/05/2016 06:14

There is afaik no indication that she was knocked over by a wave or lost her balance while bfing, or that her baby was submerged, or that anyone cannoned into her.

So, just because none of the likely scenarios did happen, that OK?

I think suing reinforces the idea that she, the baby's mother, and by extension all of us mothers can be trusted to keep our babies' best interests at heart.

I think it reinforces the idea that breastfeeders mothers are belligerent women who think they are more important and special than everyone else. I don't want to be lumped in with her "by extension" one little bit. Her complaint appears to have absolutely nothing at all to do with "trustworthiness" and everything to do with "look at me I'm a lactivist". People like that do more harm than good.

Sparklingbrook · 06/05/2016 06:32

Theres no indication of anything. Would love to know the truth.

Jasonandyawegunorts · 06/05/2016 07:46

By extention....

You want to be linked to this woman all well and good, I'm not sure you should be grouping all breastfeeders in with her though.

Roussette · 06/05/2016 07:53

There is afaik no indication that she was knocked over by a wave or lost her balance while bfing, or that her baby was submerged, or that anyone cannoned into her

And if that did happen, what then? Or god forbid, a fierce wave and worse. Knowing her strident views and propensity to haul companies up on what they are doing wrong, if she had been knocked over, she would have sued that there weren't signs banning bfing mothers in the wave pool!

I hope (but doubt it) that she's learnt a lesson somewhere along the way here. After all, if MN - a very pro BF forum - is pretty much unanimous about this, she should take on board she is in the wrong for taking them to court for £20,000. I'd like to know what that money is actually supposed to be for.

bloodyteenagers · 06/05/2016 08:10

Wow a hour to drain, refill, get the chemical balance correct and the correct water temp?
Please share. The one I work with is small and new. Takes at least 24 hours to do the above.

It's also possible that she is known locally as the prolific complainer. And the life guard was pre empting that she would fall over in the waves and sue to get the wave machine switched off.

I want her friends to come back. They never answered how much she is suing for and where the money will be going as it's not about the money.

Jasonandyawegunorts · 06/05/2016 08:16

They never answered how much she is suing for and where the money will be going as it's not about the money.

Or what actually happened...

Floggingmolly · 06/05/2016 08:23

How does suing reinforce the idea that mothers can be trusted to keep our babies best interests at heart, mathanxiety??
Leaving aside that in my opinion bringing a baby into the pool and standing in front of a wave machine isn't particularly clever; she was asked did she want a chair and she said no. Confused
She was entirely free to follow whatever she considered her baby's best interests, however misguided they were.
If you were offered a seat on the bus when you are fine and healthy and perfectly able to stand; would you sue for discrimination or would you simply say no thanks? Because that's the only anology I can think of that fits what happened to the milking cow lactivist. Confused

LogicalThinking · 06/05/2016 09:37

I think suing reinforces the idea that she, the baby's mother, and by extension all of us mothers can be trusted to keep our babies' best interests at heart.
That is utter rubbish! Some people DO need to be told when they are doing stupid things that put their child at risk. Some people might not even understand the risk that they are putting their child in.
The lifeguard's job is not to watch someone do something dangerous, then rescue them, it's to identify the dangerous behaviour and stop it before something happens.

JuxtapositionRecords · 06/05/2016 09:57

Also don't forget as beckymacdonald pointed out this is a Leisure Trust, not a private company with tons of money to spare. I imagine forking out any amount of money on this nonsense (including legal fees etc) will be pretty damaging to them. Not exactly sure how it works, I assume public funding?

beckywiththemehhair · 06/05/2016 11:24

There was a case a few years ago where a mother sued a swimming pool for not allowing her to bf by the poolside and she was awarded considerable compensation. But that's not what happened here. This one screams of opportunism if not an outright set-up and the life guard fell into her trap. Her poor children.

mathanxiety · 08/05/2016 05:49

Mathanxiety There is afaik no indication that she was knocked over by a wave or lost her balance while bfing, or that her baby was submerged, or that anyone cannoned into her

Roussette And if that did happen, what then? Or god forbid, a fierce wave and worse.

If there were no signs restricting entry into the wave pool to children above a certain age then the proprietors must have assumed that some of the babies and children would be held in parents' arms.

If she was just standing there holding her baby while the waves washed past her, would that have been cause to offer her a seat? What was it about breastfeeding that made a seat necessary?

I am speaking here as someone who frequently held a baby in a wave pool, and a toddler, and was never knocked over or in danger of being knocked over. I used my judgement as to whether my babies and small children needed to be held in the wave pool. I didn't try breastfeeding but I can't imagine it would have been all that challenging compared to holding a toddler or three year old or a baby on my hip.

If her judgement was sufficiently trustworthy for a wave pool company to allow her to have a non-breastfeeding baby in the water with her then they should have trusted that she was capable of breastfeeding

Roussette Knowing her strident views and propensity to haul companies up on what they are doing wrong, if she had been knocked over, she would have sued that there weren't signs banning bfing mothers in the wave pool!
That doesn't come into it because it didn't happen.

Jasonandyawegunorts · 08/05/2016 06:23

they should have trusted that she was capable of breastfeeding

But they did trust she was capable of breastfeeding, they offered her a comfortable chair at the pool side to do it instead of battling the wave machine with two children.

What was it about breastfeeding that made a seat necessary?

I would assume she looked rather awkward juggling two children, one at her breast in a pool full of waves. The offer of a seat isn't exactly a totally off the wall suggestion.

Jasonandyawegunorts · 08/05/2016 06:26

Would you have a problem with the same situation on a bus?

SoupDragon · 08/05/2016 07:11

The chair wasn't "necessary" and the only information we have ( the news article), says she was offered a chair for comfort.

Abbie Stocker was feeding eight-month-old Eric in the water while a wave machine was on when a concerned lifeguard asked her if the would prefer to sit in a chair.

topcat2014 · 08/05/2016 07:15

What is this 'suing' - we are turning American..

As far as my very limited knowledge of law goes, you can't just 'sue' someone for money if you haven't actually suffered any loss - which she hasn't.

Would be interested to know the laws applicable?

Narp · 08/05/2016 07:16

"I think suing reinforces the idea that she, the baby's mother, and by extension all of us mothers can be trusted to keep our babies' best interests at heart"

HAHAHAHA

What is this personality change that comes over all parents that makes them all reasonable, intellingent, kind people?

Parenthood doesn't make people right all the time

blaeberry · 08/05/2016 07:19

Did she have two children with her? All the pools round here insist one 1 adult to 1 child in with under 4s.

Jasonandyawegunorts · 08/05/2016 07:19

topcat2014 Off topic But that Halifax advert you are in is rubbish, what were you thinking?Grin

Narp · 08/05/2016 07:35

Sorry. I apologise for my HAHAHA. It was unecessarily rude. But i do stand by the rest of my post.

Sparklingbrook · 08/05/2016 08:01

This might be worth discussing more when all facts are known I guess. All just speculation currently.

I wouldn't be surprised if we never hear another thing.

Roussette · 08/05/2016 11:21

Because math lifeguards have to assess situations and minimise the possibility of an accident happening. We are turning into a litigious country. She is sueing for being offered a chair whilst in a pool with a wave machine on. The amount she would receive if there was a terrible accident and the lifeguard hadn't done his job by trying to minimise any possible danger would be far far more no doubt.

JuxtapositionRecords · 08/05/2016 13:44

am speaking here as someone who frequently held a baby in a wave pool, and a toddler, and was never knocked over or in danger of being knocked over

Well done you, however;

  • The lifeguard could have been male, no idea about breastfeeding, and just assumed (as you would) that it's probably a bit awkward to bf in a wave pool
  • The lifeguard could have seen similar happen where a mother did lose her balance or struggle
  • The lifeguard could have been told by management to make bf mothers as welcome and comfortable as possible
....really the list goes on about why the chair was offered with good intentions. And all it would take is her saying, like most other decent people who don't overreact to every little thing, "I'm fine here thanks". Instead she is suing for £20k. Reasonable?

Agree with sparkling we will hear no more on this.

mathanxiety · 09/05/2016 06:55

Offering a chair constitutes discouraging her from breastfeeding in the pool.
Why would it be necessary for the staff to do this?

Breastfeeding only differs from holding a baby across your body (while sleeping for instance) in the small detail of your nipple being in the baby's mouth. If they weren't offering chairs to all the mothers holding babies or toddlers in the same position when they might not be breastfeeding, then they are singling out someone just for breastfeeding, and I can't understand what makes breastfeeding more of a danger to anyone than holding the same baby across your body ten minutes later in the wave pool.
I can't understand how breastfeeding a baby might be more dangerous than allowing a pregnant women at about 38 weeks into the wave pool, where she might be tipped over and a horrible accident might happen. Were there rules about pregnant women entering the wave pool? Being heavily pregnant affects your ability to balance after all...

If you weren't topless or exposing a whole boob while breastfeeding, a lifeguard might not even suspect you were breastfeeding. How would he or she know how dangerous your situation was?

What is the huge change in the situation that happens due to breastfeeding as opposed to holding a baby across your chest in the wave pool?

If she had another child or a toddler with her -- I am sure there were lots of parents juggling two children in the wave pool and possibly finding it tough. I don't see how having one attached to you at the nipple would have made a difference. If one of the offspring with you was a baby and one a toddler, then you would most likely hang onto the baby with one arm, and clasping him or her across your body in breastfeeding position might well be the best way to do that, while using the other arm to hold onto the other small child. Not too much different from holding a baby while breastfeeding and also wrangling a toddler.
Were there other patrons of the pool who were not breastfeeding who were being asked to reconsider their decision to enter the water with a baby and a toddler or small child in tow if it looked as if they were struggling?

If the lifeguard is male 'and has no idea about breastfeeding' then he needs to be educated about it. A male's misconceptions about breastfeeding are not reason enough to ask a woman to leave the or anywhere else for that matter.
I don't think it's a given that it would be awkward to breastfeed in a wave pool.
(I'll tell you where it's really awkward to breastfeed -- in a cubicle in a public loo, where women used to have to go along with their toddlers or other children, in the bad old days before men and a lot of women too got used to the idea that boobs are for feeding babies).

Women don't just lose their balance or struggle in water they are standing in because of breastfeeding. Just holding onto a baby or a toddler or both in a wave pool can lead to falling over. It is far more likely that a lifeguard would have seen that happen, given that many people try to do that, while very few indeed might try breastfeeding in a wave pool. Was the lifeguard asking people to only hold one child or baby in the pool? Were there any signs posted asking for each baby or child to be accompanied by one dedicated adult? There is nothing about breastfeeding that makes it inherently more likely that you would be knocked over in a wave pool as opposed to the likelihood of being knocked over while just holding a baby or toddler or even an older child. If they had no rules about children under a certain age needing one adult each with them in the pool and asked the woman to sit down for 'safety reasons' then they were wrong.

I do not know how they would think offering a chair would make her feel welcome. She paid to get into the water and enjoy the waves, not sit on a chair at the side.
Do you really think this woman or any woman would pay for a day's outing without considering whether it was safe for a baby she intended to take along?
Should women have to take into account the ignorance of lifeguards/ shop staff/ waiters when making their decisions about taking their breastfeeding babies out? Should they have to accept those ignorant opinions?

So society is becoming more litigious. I don't see how that is a bad thing. Public breastfeeding became acceptable and legal in the US because women sued for their right to breastfeed in public in tandem with a campaign for increased awareness of the functions of the female body. When lawsuits reached critical mass, businesses started educating their staff. This was a positive development.

LOL @ 'we are turning American'.
It's a very good thing imo to be willing to sue. A lot of good comes of it. There are a lot of arrogant people and businesses who think they have a right to make money that trumps other people's right to dignity, or a right to make others pander to their neuroses. There is nothing like a lawsuit to put an end to that. Don't underestimate the educational value of a court judgement.

SoupDragon · 09/05/2016 07:08

Offering a chair constitutes discouraging her from breastfeeding in the pool.
Why would it be necessary for the staff to do this?

What utter nonsense. Of course it doesn't. Why would the staff do it? How about because she might be more comfortable sitting down rather than standing up in a wave pool holding a heavy, slippery 8 month old. Just a thought.

SoupDragon · 09/05/2016 07:12

t's a very good thing imo to be willing to sue. A lot of good comes of it.

And an awful lot of bad whereby people are stopped from doing things that were perfectly OK before the world went bonkers about suing.

If someone had offered me a chair during my stint at breasfptfeeding' I would have thanked them and/or perhaps politely turned it down if I didn't need it. I wouldn't have gone bonkers and sued them whilst screeching about being prevented from breastfeeding.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.