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.

Wow, people are really running with the farfetched idea that I might be this plaintiff.

My DD3 is a qualified lifeguard, and so are many of her 17.5 yo friends. So forgive me for rolling an eye at the idea that qualifying as a lifeguard involves any sort of understanding of the law on breastfeeding, or a grasp of what constitutes discrimination.

No-one has a right to cause a breastfeeding woman discomfort or upset or embarrassment while she is breastfeeding, be it by unkind remarks or by 'offering her a chair' in a place other than the exact spot she has chosen to breastfeed.

Jason, you and LT seem to be convinced that exposure of a breast has nothing to do with the 'offer of a chair'. But how else would the lifeguard have known this woman was breastfeeding? Lots of women hold their babies across their chests after all, and for all the world they could be breastfeeding.

The story is about a lifeguard suggesting a chair next to the pool to prevent possible wave machine related danger
How you can continue to insist this is the case when I have shown photos of this specific pool and quoted the pool brochure's description of the three zones of the pool I do not understand. The brochure is very clear that parents can sit in the water at the shallow end and watch small children play.

If there was any danger from the waves this women could have been redirected to the shallow end. But no, the lifeguard 'offered her a chair' apart from other patrons.

It's all speculation as far as I am concerned.

The lifeguard in question could have breastfeeding women in their life and was showing some empathy. We don't know.

&how else would the lifeguard have known this woman was breastfeeding? Lots of women hold their babies across their chests after all, and for all the world they could be breastfeeding.*

Perhaps she was quietly feeding, Maybe she was ranting about how it's hard work breastfeeding in a wave pool, or that sitting in shallow water was uncomfortable whiel breast feeding.

perhaps she was jumping up and down singing "I'm a breast feeding lactavist." To the tune of Bat out of hell.

The point is YOU don't know, unless you make it up, as you have.

How you can continue to insist this is the case when I have shown photos of this specific pool and quoted the pool brochure's description of the three zones of the pool I do not understand. The brochure is very clear that parents can sit in the water at the shallow end and watch small children play.

Because the quote from the paper says it. You are using a picture, I am using a first hand quote from someone who was there. This is how i (and everyone else) can insist.

If there was any danger from the waves this women could have been redirected to the shallow end. But no, the lifeguard 'offered her a chair' apart from other patrons.

You can't have it both ways.
Up until this point you have insisted she was in the shallow end of the pool, because breastfeeders know best about safety, bizarrely you pushed this to the point of asking if i was calling all women imbecile for suggesting she wasn't in shallow water.

Now you are saying she may have been unsafefurther in but the lifeguard was still wrong to suggest a pool side chair.

Math, you're being ridiculous. It can be perfectly appropriate to offer a seat elsewhere. I sometimes ended up sitting on the floor to bf when out and about because there weren't any free seats. I'd have kissed someone who offered me a seat, even if it had been 30 feet away.

I'm still pretty confused why a mother would to bf in a pool... it's just indulgent.

I imagine it was the child, not the mother, who wanted the feed. No-one is capable of stuffing a nipple in the mouth of an unwilling toddler. BF is more than just food, it is also a way that babies and toddlers feel comfort. I think it's perhaps hard for anyone who hasn't carried on BF through toddler stage to appreciate - but when the toddler wants a BF, and the mother's able to give it, then it's really no-one else's business. Calling it "indulgent" is imposing your own personal prejudices (that BF is somehow an indulgence) on a neutral situation.

clonemenow - it wasnt a toddler she was feeding, it was an 8 month old baby.... my ds is 7 months. I breastfeed. I still don't see why she felt the need to feed in a pool. Thank for the patronising and pointless insight to bfing a toddler though.

I still wonder if the baby wanted to BF for comfort due to not liking the wave machine much.

Depending on how long the baby was in the pool, maybe he was tired... my ds is ravenous after a swim.

Yes could have been time to get out anyway.

Ha your arguments are totally bonkers - no sane person could interpret what happened the way you have. I hope this gets thrown out of court and all costs are to be paid by the persons bringing the case to court. Maybe it will stop her entitled behaviour.

Man not ha

There was a FB blog thing that I read last year at some point, by a woman who was upset that she'd had to sit on the floor of the train to breastfeed and no-one offered her a seat.

I asked her why she didn't just ask (I had thought it was a bit PA to sit with a sad face and then blog about it), and she said she just didn't have the confidence to - it made her feel like she was demanding special treatment, whereas had someone offered she wouldn't have felt bad about it.

People like this loud-mouthed 'lactivist' are doing the silent majority (like the train bf blogger) a huge disservice when they stamp & scream 'discrimination!' because of an offer of a more comfortable/less dangerous or horrible place to feed their children.

An offer is not an order.

DP just offered me a cup of tea. I wonder what that's a euphemism for

You should LTB milk.

How very dare he be so controlling and treat you as if you are brainless, helpless & don't know your own mind.

Offering you a fucking cup of tea indeed!
Twat!

No-one has a right to cause a breastfeeding woman discomfort or upset or embarrassment while she is breastfeeding, be it by unkind remarks or by 'offering her a chair' in a place other than the exact spot she has chosen to breastfeed.
That is just nonsense. Most women would not be uncomfortable or upset at the offer of a chair - most would appreciate the offer and decline if it wasn't wanted. Women do not have the right to sit anywhere they choose and scream discrimination at the offer of a chair when they have chosen somewhere inappropriate. The inappropriateness has nothing to do with her exposure or the sensibilities of other people, it's to do with the appropriateness of a woman sitting there with a baby.
These would be unreasonable places to choose to breastfeed and offering a chair somewhere else would be the right thing to do
Sitting on a display in a shop. (I saw a woman doing this in Waterstones)
Blocking an aisle or walkway.
In front of a door.
In a small or busy lift (not leaving until she has finished)
Sitting on the stairs of a busy thoroughfare or fire escape.
Going down a waterslide.
Treading water or floating on her back in the deep end of a swimming pool.

It would also be reasonable and positively nice to offer her a chair for her own comfort if she was sitting on the floor, even if that chair was a very short distance from where she was.

Thank for the patronising and pointless insight to bfing a toddler though.

My mistake, orange, I read it as 19 months. Sorry you found my comment patronising, it wasn't intended that way. I think everything I said about a toddler often BFing for comfort rather than food holds just as true for a 9 month old, though. A 9-month old is also still likely to be suddenly hungry and want to BF.

If your 8-month old doesn't want to BF frequently, that's great for you. It's not everyone's experience though, and I found that my babies (one of whom I fed through toddlerdom too) wanted to BF very frequently, often in circumstances which others might perceive as "unnecessary". But it felt "necessary" to my babies/toddler, so I got on with it. No-one else's business to judge or call "indulgent" (as you did about this woman). That's all.

Also, for many BF mothers (I appreciate not all) BFing is something you just get on with while you do other things. Therefore, BFing while you're in a pool, or 'in front of a door' (which you might be strolling past, or about to go through) or 'sitting on the edge of a display' (perhaps while you take a moment to latch on) or 'in a small or busy lift' is indeed appropriate. It's not necessarily something you have to go and get yourself settled out of the way in a chair and settle in for a long-haul. It's often just a quick 2-3 min latch on and suck while the mother carries on with what she's doing.

No-one has a right to cause a breastfeeding woman discomfort or upset or embarrassment while she is breastfeeding, be it by unkind remarks or by 'offering her a chair' in a place other than the exact spot she has chosen to breastfeed.

So do you think the lifeguard would have been unreasonable to put a chair in the swimming pool? Then you would have sued him for doing something dangerous

She could have had the lifeguard's chair. That would have kept her and the baby well clear of the water.

I am going to start using "offering a chair" as a metaphor for insulting someone

For example :

A man pushed in at the bus queue, so I "offered him a chair"

A woman refused to put her cigarette out in the cinema so I "offered her a chair"

I "offered a chair" to the man who dropped litter in my front garden

Most women would not be uncomfortable or upset at the offer of a chair - most would appreciate the offer and decline if it wasn't wanted. Women do not have the right to sit anywhere they choose and scream discrimination at the offer of a chair when they have chosen somewhere inappropriate. The inappropriateness has nothing to do with her exposure or the sensibilities of other people, it's to do with the appropriateness of a woman sitting there with a baby.

It doesn't matter if anyone is personally offended or insulted. Being offended and being discriminated against are two separate things.

You can be very annoyed by a situation that is not discrimination and you can feel perfectly charmed by someone offering you a seat to breastfeed in and it can still be discrimination. A lot of people put up with discrimination because they don't know their rights. What a shame that so many women here don't seem to know them either, and don't understand that personal feelings have nothing to do with the definition.

There is no suggestion that this woman was in anyone's way or blocking a fire exit or interfering with anyone else's enjoyment or safety in the pool.

If it does turn out that she was sitting in the shallow area or in the intermediate area away from the main action, then she may well win her case, because there would be no safety issue whatsoever there. If pool patrons were complaining, then the lifeguard should have reminded them of the woman's right to breastfeed and pool policy encouraging breastfeeding (allegedly). Being a pro-breastfeeding business involves tactful education of irate members of the public if they complain.

Was someone stamping and screaming? Must check the article..

MangoMoon, the scene in the train carriage was not analogous. If a railway official had asked her to have a seat at the next station then your analogy would be appropriate. No matter where she sat, if she had found a seat or if someone had offered one she would still have been in the carriage and not secluded from the other passengers.

Was someone being indulgent? Or is this someone being judgey?

If pool patrons were complaining, then the lifeguard should have reminded them of the woman's right to breastfeed and pool policy encouraging breastfeeding (allegedly). Being a pro-breastfeeding business involves tactful education of irate members of the public if they complain.

As far as the facts go the only member of the public complaining was the woman who was offered a chair becuase the waves in the pool were getting big.

I know you'd like for there to be loads of complaining about breastfeeding and that the lifeguard hid this woman away, but the facts from people at the pool, including the woman herself, just don't match that.

The waves were getting bigger, the life guard decided to offer this woman a chair at the pool side as he thought she might have to struggle to keep the babies head out of the water. Even in the shallow end the waves can get pretty big.

She wasn't hidden away, she wasn't told to stop, people weren't complaining, There was no demanding, there were no reported other women holding their babies in the same way who were cheered on to continue while she was told to move.

No matter where she sat, if she had found a seat or if someone had offered one she would still have been in the carriage and not secluded from the other passengers.

This woman would still have been at the pool she wasn't secluded from anyone.

If it does turn out that she was sitting in the shallow area or in the intermediate area away from the main action

Then she was probably so far out of the water anyway and a chair would have made no difference to her location.