Caroline Starmer apparently has a history of mental illness. Nobody knows if her MH issues clouded her judgement on the occasion when she made a false report, but I feel it is unfair to her to keep on mentioning her, for that reason.
I don't know why you continue to bring her up here unless you are trying to imply that the word of nursing mothers is always suspect.
Jeez so no one can politely ask if someone would like a chair now before people shout 'discrimination'. [Littlemiss]
We've been over this. If you are on duty as an employee of a business then you are subject to the terms of the Equality Act and so is the owner or the management of the business. So don't interfere, interrupt, second guess the seating arrangements or tell the women she has to breastfeed elsewhere. She has the right to use the facility or the premises to breastfeed, in the spot that she chooses. If you are not employed in a business or if you are on a bus or train or at a pool or elsewhere and representing nobody but yourself, you are free to offer a chair to anyone.
ZeeZeek -- discrimination can happen even if it is not experienced as a slight. People can be quite happy to experience discrimination.
It is always a good thing to know your rights however, because discrimination is always a problem, if not for you then for the next women, and the more we stand up against it the better this world will be for all of us. So even if we are SAHMs we support women who are in the workplace and hope that they will one day be paid equally. We support the right of women to vote even if we ourselves don't care to register or vote. Etc.
LT
It's the wave pool that makes the difference.
And as shown, there is a perfectly safe shallow end where parents and their small children can hang out, safe from the waves but still enjoying the aquatic experience.
No reviews complained about having to hoik small children out of the shallow end when the wave machine was on.
One review complained about a very obvious safety issue with the slide, which leads me to suspect that this pool management hasn't trained its lifeguards well at all. I suspect they wouldn't recognise a safety issue if it jumped up and bit them in the arse. Therefore their appraisal of an alleged situation where a breastfeeding woman was in danger in the pool leaves me raising my eyebrows. (This observation is apart altogether from the description of the shallow end which makes it clear that there is a safe part of the pool when the wave machine goes on.)
Flash,
The amount she is seeking is chicken feed, relatively speaking.
The principle she is standing up for is extremely important, however. There is no point having a law on the statute books guaranteeing the right to breastfeed if businesses and public facilities do not understand their obligation to allow and facilitate breastfeeding, and keep on 'offering chairs at the side and out of the water and away from other pool patrons' or 'offering rooms' or offering somewhere quieter, drier, less noisy, etc. For many businesses this means proper training of staff, going through different scenarios including how to deal with other patrons who approach a staff member to complain about exposed breasts, etc. (Believe it or not, this happens, as shown by the other DM article I linked to.)
Another really good reason to sue, whether for injury or for discrimination, is to force an unwilling or lazy management to educate itself or make changes to ensure safety, and this can happen in an indirect way as well as directly by dint of an adverse judgement. Indirectly -- the pool will have insurance to cover losses in lawsuits. The insurer will note the sort of injuries reported, or the kinds of discrimination, etc. The insurer will talk with the management about risk mitigation because ultimately it is in the insurer's interests for pools it insures not to be facing court ordered payouts or settlements out of court. Or the insurer will ask for documentation of policies in place or safety upgrades in order to prevent future losses of money.
'Extreme militancy' is not going to adversely affect women's right to publicly breastfeed any more. The law is on the side of women.
What you call 'extreme militancy' on the part of breastfeeding women is actually the temerity to exercise that right in whatever manner they choose, and to remind others of it when challenged and to sue when it is clear that management are not willing to follow the law.
Or do you mean by 'extreme militancy' the exposure of breasts while breastfeeding?
Is it somehow unladylike to be aware of your rights and ready to challenge anyone who tries to take them from you?
What incentive is there for businesses to follow the law and provide proper training for staff if people shouldn't sue for discrimination or for laxity on safety matters? Should pools feel free to segregate patrons based on breastfeeding status, which is against the law, or should there be some sort of big stick there to keep them in line? Should pools feel free to operate features like a slide that threatens to cut patrons where the sections are improperly joined, or keep in place rules allowing people to slide together, or provide mats that increase velocity to the point where sliding becomes unsafe?
I hope that the publicity accorded to this particular incident will provide a wake up call to pools and other public facilities. It is important that all managers of public premises educate themselves about their responsibilities under the Equality Act and train employees, if necessary.
So clearly, there are many good reasons to sue.
Peggy, if you want to report, then be my guest.