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.

Sorry but there is a time and place. Im all fpr breastfeeding. If you want to whip your boob out in a park/museum/cafe- crack on. But a swimming pool? Sounds to me like someone was looking for their 5 minutes and a payout to me.

Math

You are clearly well versed in the Equality Act 2012 and discrimation law, and believe those who aren't are 'particularly stupid'.

I similarly know a fair bit about VAT rules (as its my line of work).... Do I think those that don't are particularly stupid? Of course not! On the contrary, I myself would be particularly stupid (not mention particularly self-absorbed) if I thought they were! But that's consistent with this whole extreme 'lactivism' nonsense.... A particular blend of stupidity and self-absorption!

I posted it to emphasise that discrimination means being offered a chair that was outside of the actual pool. I underlined the point. The public service that both of the woman were using was the actual pool, the place with the water.

I also posted it to illustrate that while pools can talk the pro breastfeeding talk as much as they want, when push comes to shove, they can actually discriminate against real live women who want to breastfeed real live babies or toddlers.

Plus, it seems for all the disingenuous refusal to admit that anyone could possibly object to breastfeeding because of some sort of neurosis about the female body, it seems that some patrons of the other pool had some sort of problem with this particular body function being performed in their presence, whether because they could see a boob or whether they could imagine one I do not know.

MangoMoon:
'...on a daily basis...'?
You mean 364 days a year? 200 days a year? 150 days a year?
You are exaggerating, surely?

Flash, how about an experiment?

You can explain VAT in simple terms, using a few examples (DM articles will be fine) and see the results.

Maybe pick a contentious VAT topic, one that gets argued about.

Jason, you are not following this at all.
Do you belong to the Jason school of muddled thinking and inability to discern analogy?

This coming from a person Who decided using a completely different pool, with other staff in another town with a totally different incident somehow highlights the guilt of another pool?

Plus, it seems for all the disingenuous refusal to admit that anyone could possibly object to breastfeeding because of some sort of neurosis about the female body

But no one at this pool did. putting up an article you've found from 3 years ago about discrimination happening in kent Doesn't prove this pool in Lancashire is the same (They are 3 years and 278 miles apart).

There are people on this thread who have breastfed at the pool in question and can confirm they are supportive of breast feeding.

Peeps, is there any point in arguing with someone that has the thought process to construe offering a chair as discrimination? Seriously?

Math

Your response shows how self-absorbed you are in this... Yes, if someone had read the article, this thread, and reviewed the relevant Acts of Parliament and case law (which as you stated does distinguish between public bodies and individuals) then maybe they would be rather stupid to be worried... But 99.9%+ of people have neither the time or inclination to do that.

For that majority of the population it would not be 'particularly stupid' to read a story about someone taking legal action for being offered a chair in which to breast feed, and be concerned about their own actions, especially as there are most definitely laws (such as the one i stated) that make prejudice and discrimination an offence at an individual level in circumstances relating to a wide range of groups with defined characteristics (e.g. race, disability, sexuality etc).

Peeps, is there any point in arguing with someone that has the thought process to construe offering a chair as discrimination? Seriously?

Yes it has kept the thread alive for the breastcake 2 week birthday.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY THREAD.

IT'S ALSO CLOSER TO NOT ACCEPTING NEW POSTS

Math, by your definition of what you deem to be discrimination, breastfeeding mums should be allowed to swim in the middle of the wave pool and use the water slide. Because they can decide and they know best and no-one can suggest otherwise!

I am very well versed with the equality act 2012 and it is simply not black and white. Exceptions are allowed as long as they can be justified. It is perfectly justifiable to be concerned that a baby breastfeeding in a wave pool, might be at risk of being covered in a wave, so offering a chair in the same area but out of the waves is perfectly reasonable and in no way treats her less favourably.

Happy boobcake day!

Two whole weeks we have been discussing this non story.

There seems to be a lot of unknowns and a lot of assumptions being made:

Where exactly the incident took place in the pool
The strength of the waves at the point in question
The wording used for the offer
Where the chair was located

Seems a bit pointless arguing the whys and wherefores when we don't actually know any facts other than what has been reported in the paper by a third party.

Happy Boobcake Day!!

What a beaut mango and happy boobcake day to you all. I might go for a run around the block with my boobs out to celebrate. I feel we shouldn't forget to thank op for this thread, who has no doubt long gone wondering what sort of monster she created

I would advise you not to run around with your boobs out due to the risk of bushes pricking you, sun burn or simply being knocked out if your breasts are big enough to do it.

However I won't actively ask you to stop just in case you sue me..

I might go for a run around the block with my boobs out to celebrate.

As long as it's not a pool party.

...'[the law] which as you stated does distinguish between public bodies and individuals'

Indeed it does. In fact, it deserves to be repeated (not that repeating facts has made any difference to 99% of the people on this thread).

I stated upthread that just because I am in a minority seemingly of one here it doesn't mean I am wrong. It beats me how anyone could have believed any other scenario could be the case. For what it's worth, I have not read any case law, just browsed through the DM. So no specialised knowledge is needed, just a modicum of intelligence and some common sense, both sadly and even shockingly lacking here, but hopefully to be found in greater abundance out in the real world.

Are you trying to say that 99.9% of people are as obtuse as the majority of the population of this thread?

Math, by your definition of what you deem to be discrimination, breastfeeding mums should be allowed to swim in the middle of the wave pool and use the water slide. Because they can decide and they know best and no-one can suggest otherwise! [LT]

It is not 'what I deem to be discrimination'. It is a fact that 'offering a chair' separate from the facility (i.e. out of the water, because the water is the facility here) constitutes discrimination.

Everyone can decide what is best for them and their children if the pool has not posted notices forbidding certain classes of people from certain areas. If the pool does not post notices restricting access to the zone where the waves are strongest to strong swimmers (defined by whom?) or swimmers above a certain height, then it is up to individuals to use their best judgement for themselves and their children.

I am very well versed with the equality act 2012 and it is simply not black and white. Exceptions are allowed as long as they can be justified. It is perfectly justifiable to be concerned that a baby breastfeeding in a wave pool, might be at risk of being covered in a wave, so offering a chair in the same area but out of the waves is perfectly reasonable and in no way treats her less favourably.

I very much doubt your claim wrt the Equality Act, to judge from your posts here.

And you have clearly not looked at the pool brochure that I supplied, where it is stated that a shallow and safe area exists in the pool where parents can sit and watch their small children play. What part of this description makes you think they are subject to engulfment by waves? They simply are not in the waves. It is safe to let small children play there, and parents may sit on the bottom of the pool watching them. How can you fail to understand this?

math

I admire your tenacity. I don't agree, but I admire your tenacity

What part of this description makes you think they are subject to engulfment by waves?

Becuase the lifeguard and the witnesses have said so. Even in the shallow end the waves can get pretty rough.

How can you fail to understand this?

It's not that we fail to understand it, it's that you fail to understand the difference between "would you like a seat?" (this case), and "please breastfeed in the changing room" (the case in kent 3 years ago).

It is a fact that 'offering a chair' separate from the facility (i.e. out of the water, because the water is the facility here) constitutes discrimination.

According to you, she was in the shallow / out end out of the water anyway. If this is the case the chair would be at the pool side right next to her.

the water is the facility

No, the pool itself is, not the water. This includes the sides of the pool.

This is a bit like saying your living room is the sofa.

I very much doubt your claim wrt the Equality Act, to judge from your posts here.
I do a lot of work within disability discrimination and have helped several organisations to develop their equality, access & inclusion policies, so yes, I know the Equality Act better than most people.
I recently helped an organisation word a job advert where they were only looking for a person of a specific sex to fill the position. Normally such adverts are discriminatory, but if you can justify it, there are grounds under which you can do it.

The act states that is can be justifiable to discriminate if they have a good enough reason for doing so. In the Guidance and Codes of Practice, one of the legitimate claims in the section relating to the Provision of Services is ensuring the health and safety of those using the service provider's service. Showing concern that the breastfeeding mother may not be aware of the strength of the waves and offering her a chair in the same public space, seems reasonable and justifiable. Ultimately it is up to a court to decide, but there is provision under the law for the concern to be covered.

But logic Logic in kent 3 years before someone was discriminated against. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If that isn't proof i don't know what it.

Oh I see Jason, I didn't realise that once someone completely different in a different place was discriminated against for totally different reasons. That puts it in a whole different light.

Are you trying to say that 99.9% of people are as obtuse as the majority of the population of this thread?

The laws of statistics mean that 'majority on this thread' are more representative of the 99.9% population for whom this matter has barely registered on their radar (if at all!) than the 'sample of one' that is math!