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

[sizeofalentil]

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.

Soem people do seem to go through life looking to be offended. I haven't the energy.

'Elsewhere' is anywhere other than the place she was in the first place. She absolutely was asked to go 'elsewhere' if the chair was out of the water and she was in the water when it was 'offered'.

Becky, apparently she did speak with pool management, and as a result of that she decided to sue.

I have not said that newspapers lie. I have said that the DM gave no hint as to where exactly in a pool with different areas this woman was. Posters here have made massive assumptions that she was out among the big waves trying to breastfeed, based on no evidence from the DM article at all.

My guess is that she was in the shallows, based on the fact that the DM is reticent about where she was in the pool. There ware two angles the DM could have taken here, one being HEY LOOK BOOBS!!! and the other 'insane litigation!!!'. Judging from their photo and the omitting of the information as to exactly where she was, it's the BOOBS!!! angle they are capitalising on. Controversy about insane litigation is secondary and will get clicks too, but BOOBS!!! is the easy option here, because BOOBS!!!

I'm not sure you even know what your talking about any more. your constant insistence to make every post about boobs is weird as fuck, it relates to nothing at all with the article or the reasons given. And no, next to where you just were isn't "elsewhere" it's the same location.

So if I place a chair and position it to where I was sitting on the floor I am elsewhere?

Did I cross dimensions? Is it a time travelling chair like the delorian?

No it's the same spot. Just higher up and more comfortable

No-one has suggested that this was indecent or that she should not expose her breasts. That has come from your imagination. I would be quite happy for her to sit on a chair by the side of the pool in full view of everyone.

In the judgement of the lifeguard - the person with the responsibility for the safety of everyone in the pool, felt that her position was not very safe as she could easily be knocked over by a wave (yes even in the shallow end) so offered her a chair. There was nothing discriminatory in that decision.

Quote from the newspaper article:
"The wave machine was on at the time and the waves can get pretty strong when they reach the shore end of the pool."
"But the 27-year-old refused and claimed she had been prevented from feeding her son before leisure bosses were hit with legal action a week later."

LOL at the idea that no article in the DM could possibly be about boobs. (!!!)

How are you so sure that the chair was' next to' where she was sitting?
The fact is, sitting on a chair next to a pool is not the same thing at all as sitting in the pool enjoying the water, which you paid to do. You are splitting hairs here, with your 'elsewhere' and 'next to'. The ladies room is 'next to' the dining area in many restaurants, but feeding your baby there is not the same thing at all as feeding him at your table, nor is your restaurant experience the same if you end up spending twenty minutes in the ladies room 'next to' but not in the dining room.

If no other parent was asked to leave the pool or 'offered a chair' because pool conditions had become dangerous, then it was the breastfeeding and possibly the exposure of a breast that the lifeguard objected to.

Would a lifeguard 'offer a chair' to everyone who seemed to be making heavy weather of holding a baby or child in that wave pool?
It is much more likely that the lifeguard would ask the patron to go to the shallow end with the child, to the section described in the brochure where parents and small children can sit and where people can get used to the water and wave motion before entering the big wave area.
Look at the brochure. It's all there.

A lifeguard is much more likely to 'offer a chair' to a breastfeeding women in the belief that breastfeeding women should sit apart from other patrons of the pool.

I bfed too until my DCs were quite long in the tooth. The longest I did it was until age 3.5.

I did not have a 'look at me' attitude, whatever that may be.
What is a 'look at me' attitude, by the way?

Whether you like it or not, women who went before you and fought your battles for you made sure you did not get negative comments, and maybe a room at work where you can pump, and a fridge to store milk in, etc. Maybe you don't remember what it was like before pubic breastfeeding was legal? I am 51, and I do.

'The wave machine was on at the time'

Read the brochure. Look at the photos of the pool.

The wave machine could well have been on at the time, but if she was in the shallow area then she was nowhere near any waves that might have put her or her baby in any danger.

You are making a leap from 'wave machine on' to 'monumentally stupid woman insists on staying in tsunami conditions with baby' and your leap is not supported by anything in the paper (which is a rag, btw).

Maybe you don't remember what it was like before pubic breastfeeding was legal? I am 51, and I do.

I'm 53. It's never been illegal in the UK. I did it in 1992 with no issues whatsoever.
And being offered a chair is courtesy, that's all.

Being offered a chair most certainly is not just a courtesy. It's a request to take your boobs and your baby elsewhere.

It has been illegal to discriminate against a woman breastfeeding in public in the UK since 1975 but only the Equality Act of 2010 states explicitly that a business cannot discriminate against mothers who are breastfeeding a child of any age.
If you are 53 then you were over 10 when the nation first started to wrap its head around the idea of public breastfeeding, and you were 47 when protection became explicit.

In Scotland, the relevant legislation is the Breastfeeding etc. (Scotland) Act 2005.

Where I come from it has been legal to breastfeed publicly since 2000.

original I agree. I have no idea where you get the energy math to be so angry and argumentative towards everyone maybe the thought of £20k helps

Your arguments are just totally lost on me now. To keep insisting that this was sexual ... I mean, where has this come from? Clearly from the way you talk you have some serious issues with men, but to try and insist the lifeguard could have no other thought then sexual ones when he saw her breast is a pretty disturbing allegation.

If the lifeguard was a straight female, what would be her reasoning for offering the lady a chair then by your logic? I mean, the hospital incidents were dealt with by females. Or you are saying the female hospital staff just had to get her out of sight because some pathetic helpless men just couldn't resist getting turned on by her breast?

The fact you seem so rigid on how everyone should treat breastfeeding mothers, and then ignorantly use a word like 'imbecile' just shows how you are so far into trying to make an issue where there isn't one that you can't see where the real problems are in this world. Educate yourself please on how not to use disabilist language and what discrimination actually means, as what happened to this woman certainly wasn't it.

And please stop comparing these petty lactivist fights with the Suffragettes, it's really no where near on the same level.

To be honest, I think this could come out as total bullshit and the mother made it all up and you would still find a way to try and argue she has been oppressed/discrimated against/let down by society.

Someone in the legal profession has done the necessary paperwork to set a suit in motion, so I very much doubt this was all made up (even if it was reported in the DM).

There are lots of women who buy into the argument that women's breasts should never be exposed while breastfeeding in public and preferably should separate themselves from other people to do so.

They have internalised the message that boobs are for sex. Hence the spectacle of the incident at the hospital. I hope they were educated there about breastfeeding rights after the woman's complaint. You would really think a woman would be supported in breastfeeding in a hospital, by a midwife no less. It is very disappointing and actually quite disturbing to see the same 'offer of a room' phrase used to describe discrimination in both the pool and the hospital.

It is quite obvious from this thread that the midwife and pool management are not the only ones needing education on what constitutes discrimination when it comes to breastfeeding.

It is thanks to lactivists that women have rooms in workplaces to pump milk in , and breaks for pumping. What good does the right to work outside the home do for nursing women if they can't pump at work? We seem to be so blithely ignoring how all of our rights are interlinked. We get to vote and legislation is passed protecting our rights, one by one. I am sure the Suffragettes would be happy to see the progress subsequent generations of activists have achieved, while at the same time furious that there are so many women who can't see the need for strident activism. There were plenty of women angry with the Suffragettes too.

I certainly seem to have annoyed a lot of people on this thread. I don't obviously know if you are men or women, but it's Mumsnet so I assume it's women posting all sorts of stuff you made up about this woman, and a good deal of insinuation about me too.

It seems breastfeeding in public pushes people's buttons, wouldn't you say?

It seems breastfeeding in public pushes people's buttons, wouldn't you say?

No i'd say you push people buttons.

There are lots of women who buy into the argument that women's breasts should never be exposed while breastfeeding in public and preferably should separate themselves from other people to do so.

This has nothing to do with the story.

They have internalised the message that boobs are for sex.

This has nothing to do with the story.
The only person on the thread who has done this is you.

she was nowhere near any waves that might have put her or her baby in any danger.

The life guard who works there and judges these things as a job say differently.

a business cannot discriminate against mothers who are breastfeeding a child of any age.

And this business didn't.

So the mother was offended by the lifeguard because he offered her a chair to bf instead of in the pool whilst the wave machine was on. She accuses him and the pool centre of infringing her right to bf in a public place and sues.

Wonder why an apology wasn't enough?

Because she's the Joan of Arc for the lactivists. Good for her to find purpose in life. Let's just hope the judge calls it the batshit crazy claim that it is. For her own sake.

Math if everyone else on a thread on a site which supports breeastfeeders tell you you are wrong, then there is a slight chance you are the one who is wrong.

I am happy for you, Jason, that you have never encountered anyone who showed any discomfort with public breastfeeding you may have engaged in. However, if it's not too much of a stretch of your imagination, you should accept that that happy circumstance is not one that all women report.

Laws on indecent exposure used to apply to women breastfeeding in public. It was therefore in the same category of crime as flashing.

I am pretty sure when I think a lot of people are wrong they are in fact wrong, Jason.

I am also pretty sure you have made up a scenario in your own head regarding the incident in the article. She was out in the waves, for starters. This assumption is accompanied by the unproven assertion that the lifeguard had only her safety in mind, and her baby's, when he asked her to remove herself from the pool. These are your opinions, not proven facts.

If safety had been a concern and she was in any danger, then why not ask her to sit in the shallow area shown in the photo I provided?

(Finelytuned, there are photos upthread showing a shallow end with a very gradual slope, and a pool brochure talking about a shallow place where people with small children can stay out of the waves and gradually move into the area where there are big waves so they can get used to the wave motion if holding someone else up.)

This business discriminated against her by denying her use of the pool while breastfeeding despite the fact that the pool features a zero depth area where patrons can sit with water a few inches deep, which the pool brochure itself advertises as "ideal for young children and a nice place to sit".
If she had wanted to breastfeed on a chair she could have stayed home in her living room.

In case you've forgotten:
" The 25m swimming pool at Pendle Wavelengths has a gently sloping beach which edges into the warm water, ideal for young children and a nice place to sit and watch them play
For the bigger jobs the leisure pool also has a ceiling high water slide (that's mainly open flume but includes a black hole feature!) plus a wave machine that fills the pool with swell at regular intervals! It's pretty strong so be sure to start out in the shallows when the waves start and get the hang of things before progressing, especially if you're not the only body that you're having to keep up! And be sure to wear a costume not a wetsuit as there are no zips allowed on the slide"

Someone in the legal profession has done the necessary paperwork to set a suit in motion, so I very much doubt this was all made up

Uh huh. And someone in the legal profession is going be able to pay their rent by taking on this case too. Even if it's no win no fee, the publicity is free advertising for their firm. Lawyers don't always take on cases because they think they will win

If the shallow end is ideal for sitting, then why did she need a chair away from the water?

She was offered a chair.
She refused the offer.
Fine, her prerogative.

Had she been told to get out of the pool, then that is clearly different.

It really isn't difficult to see the difference.

A win for everyone then. Hooray.

Pool management whose lifeguards are allowed to indulge their neuroses about breastfeeding get educated about the right to public breastfeeding and what the word discrimination means.

Woman scores one for the sisterhood, because no doubt there are other establishments and even hospitals who now know the 'offering' of chairs and separate rooms is being noticed.

Presumably the baby eventually got fed.

It baffles me how posters here are so hung up on the word 'offer'.

The woman was singled out for breastfeeding and the alternative location 'offered' was outside the water, even though it is abundantly clear that the pool provides a zero depth area that is ideal for sitting in.

In the case of the hospital the room 'offered' was away from the waiting room, and she eventually fed her baby in a corridor. Straight up discrimination both times.

I really don't understand how people can't see that the 'offer' is a euphemism for 'you can't breastfeed here, dear'.

Well, just had a look at the brochure and it looks like the free publicity has been fantastic for the centre. And if the lactivist wins, hopefully the extra business will cover it. If the centre wins then lactivist gets to give her "We will not give up. We will change the world" speech to a wide audience. Win win all around.

Wow, I never even thought of the pool getting extra business. So much for the hand wringing about £20k. (There is no right without remedy, btw).

Think how many people would be attracted if they were to issue a heartfelt apology and a statement about really welcoming nursing mothers. Nursing women and their families in droves might decide to give it a whirl.