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.

They don't have to be above water level to breastfeed, jux. My children have all breastfed upright, head and shoulders out of the water, body in the water.

Just another silly cow out for some cash. You'll probably find she invented the whole thing like that stupid bint last year in Primark.

I hope she's done with the boob cakes once the nursery class birthday parties start.

I'm hoping she gets landed with a huge legal bill and no payout.

She won't win her legal case. It's her dumb ass lawyer who needs a talking to. Unless she is representing herself, in which case I hope she's hit with thousands of ££££ of legal costs. What a moron. Imagine if a wave had hit her and the baby had been dragged under the water......

allowlsthinkalot - that wouldn't work in a pool with waves.

Janeymoo - would she feed her baby waist deep in the sea?

Why not? I'm trying to think whether I have fed a baby in the sea and I don't think I actually have but there's no reason why I wouldn't.

Yes, people really do feed their babies in swimming pools. I do and have all the time. It keeps them warm and happy to stay in the water while my bigger ones are playing.

Wave machine....I haven't read the article. But if I could hold a baby safely then I could safely breastfeed. So either babies are safe in the pool or they aren't. In which case the rule should be no feeding rather than no breastfeeding.

There is no convincing argument on this thread that feeding in a swimming pool isn't a sensible thing to do. And the law is on the side of those who choose to do so.

It depends how deep it is, surely? The only pool I've ever been in with waves had a very shallow end. If it's deep and the waves are powerful then possibly not. I'm visualising a pool with a shallow end, I could be wrong.

Sounds like she would probably BF anywhere and everywhere in the hope of making a fast buck out of it. The weirder the place the better.

So allow feeding a baby with a wave machine on is an OK thing to do? Can you imagine the costs against the Leisure Centre if the wave knocked them over and the baby drowned?

That is why there are lifeguards, they are there to assess danger. They offered her a chair but that brought on all of this. Pathetic.

She is idiot and attention seeker.

A swimming pool is not suitable to feed your baby , even without waves. I'm pretty sure there would have been seating somewhere around the pool if not go to changing rooms

I am not the woman. But i do know that things are not as they seem in the papers. If that situation had happened and she was sueing that much then she would be a bit foolish and i would agree with the other posters. And she is NOT the primark lady!

fourcorner she certainly looks like the type of person contstantly looking for an argument, so I would not be surprised.

She is no different to the rich kids of instagram and their boasting and the me me me. I don't think so Jason.

But i do know that things are not as they seem in the papers

But then people were horrified at Primark woman treatment and that turned out to be a load of bollocks. I can't imagine this is much different because the leisure centre has a duty of care for those that swim which is why there are lifeguards.

I am not the woman. But i do know that things are not as they seem in the papers

So what is it that isn't in the papers then?

allows - it's a swimming pool with a wave machine WHICH WAS ON .

God knows what would convince you if that doesn't . You're just being provocative aren't you?or else very stupid

y'all must have awesome pools near ya. I'm jealous. Most of the wave machines I've been to have been totally rubbish and a huge let down (geddit ) and certainly wouldn't knock you over

I can't wait to see her on This Morning. Hope they get her on. Phillip and Holly will need to practice their concerned straight faces.

I am cynical in my advancing years and feel suspicious that this was pre-planned given this woman's previous encounter with a hospital. Why would you take a baby into a wave pool knowing that it might need feeding? Surely at 8 months old he would have fairly regular feed times and not need a top up in a wave pool! Also, ridiculously dangerous to take a baby into a wave pool, he could easily have been knocked out of her arms and drowned; those waves can be quite powerful.

In which case the rule should be no feeding rather than no breastfeeding.

Well you're not allowed to eat in pools as a rule!

She wont be on. She isn't allowed to comment beyond confirming that she is sueing the place. The same for the leisure centre. Neither party is allowed to directly comment until the court case is resolved.

Maybe she was BF the baby for comfort due to it being absolutely terrified of being in the pool when the wave machine was on?

I am disappointed Holly and Phillip will not be able to grill her.

Oasis in swindon has the best wave pool i've ever been too.