To think FFS re sad faced breast feeding mums in the Daily Fail?

[Chihuahualala]

Single-mother, 33, thrown out of West End show for breast feeding

dailym.ai/2bdctPE

Fuck off ... And fuck off some more! Ear defenders or not this WAS NOT the place for your offspring! Aggggh!!!

For those all concerned that the baby was exposed to something not suitable for under 14s, get a grip.

Ten month old babies do not have the intellectual capacity to be affected by themes of sex and drugs and rock and roll in a stage show.

There is no suggestion that the mother made any sort of scene or demanded to be admitted with the baby. None of the management has suggested that any pressure was put on any front of house employee by the mother to force them to admit the baby. The employee made a sensible judgement call and admitted her with the baby. So if you have ire, and clearly there is plenty of that, save it for the front of house employee who clearly didn't think £50 ticket patrons were worth bothering about.

My remark about bees in the bonnet was directed at Francis in response to her post, as she appears to have one in hers. The other bee in the bonnet remark of mine was addressed to Elodie, who very clearly has issues where breastfeeding in public is concerned.

Me too Bummy.

For those all concerned that the baby was exposed to something not suitable for under 14s, get a grip

Ten month old babies do not have the intellectual capacity to be affected by themes of sex and drugs and rock and roll in a stage show

Spectacularly missing the point or perhaps deliberately misunderstanding.

I was at a concert performance of Das Rheingold earlier this month. It was in German and as it was a concert performance there was nothing remotely unsuitable content wise for children.

I was also at a performance of The Glass Menagerie, a play which contains no swearing, nudity, sex or violence.

I was also at a chamber performance of Mozart and Braunstone clarinet concertos.

No one with half a brain would think any of these were suitable for a baby in arms.

As you clearly have difficulty grasping the point , the paying audience who are old enough to understand and appreciate a theatre performance should not have to put up with noise and distraction from a non-paying baby who is not old enough to appreciate and understand it.

A green day musical?! Jesus I'd rather chop off my own tits

Well that added a lot to the discussion.

Agree- a theatre is no place for a baby. I have a seven month old and no one would benefit from her kicking off after forking out £50 for a ticket. I don't get the entitled attitude of some parents. I'm 100% pro breastfeeding anywhere that it's sensible for a baby to be and safe to feed.

"Brahms clarinet concerto" ( in case Math needs to nitpick about suitability for nursing infants)

We do not know what was so disturbing about the baby. We have conflicting accounts, both of which are self serving.

We do not know if this baby was 'screaming'. We do not know if the baby was merely breastfeeding. We do know that people are very quick to assume the worst when it comes to babies and we also seem to have a tendency to clairvoyance.

The Green Day musical is probably not on a par with Brahms' Third Racket or whatever other theatrical offerings you went to in the last little while, Lass. It has been described as 'chaos'. I do not see how a baby could possibly have detracted from it.

It's an adult show and should have a minimum age restriction.
Elodie offered this thought about suitability of the show for a baby. I thought it was ridiculous enough to comment upon. You probably think it's ridiculous too.

In the same post she offered this:
As for BF in the auditorium... Don't get me started.
She keeps on refusing to answer my questions about the feelings she has regarding public breastfeeding that lie behind this remark.

We do not know what was so disturbing about the baby. We have conflicting accounts, both of which are self serving.

Why do you keep lying? Every single account says the baby was screaming, that three audience members complained about the baby screaming, and that the woman refused to temporarily remove the baby to the lobby.

I know someone who was there. My friend witnessed it first hand. It's true. She was NOT breastfeeding.

No, every single account does not say the baby was 'screaming' or even that the baby was crying.

The Creative Director made a statement that included a report he received from a front of house officer. Second hand information in other words.

You 'know someone who was there'. Sorry, but we only have your word for that and you are clearly invested in a certain take on this.
'I know someone who says no way did she hear a baby crying, let alone screaming, at the performance.' See how that works?

Meanwhile, the mother has her own account.

Breastfeeding is not diplomatic immunity

LMAO - I'm going to get that printed on a T shirt

The only account that doesn't say the baby was screaming is the mother herself, and she would obviously say that. Not a single witness has said otherwise.

I don't know any of the people involved and have zero investment in any of this. I just think the disregard for the truth and for basic decency is pretty poor. I'm not the one lying or accusing eyewitnesses of lying, because babies and children are angels who can do no wrong.

I don't understand why you're so obsessed with defending someone who took a baby somewhere clearly inappropriate, told staff she'd leave if it kicked up a fuss then refused to, then sold her story to a tabloid.

She is allowed to sell her story to a tabloid. What is your problem with a woman doing something that is perfectly legal? She isn't selling crack.
An employee allowed her to take her baby into the theatre. It was therefore not 'clearly inappropriate' in the eyes of at least that employee.

I don't know why you are clinging so doggedly to the idea of the baby screaming. The creative director's account of what happened came from someone who may or may not have been a first hand witness - someone in front of house operations. There may or may not have been three complaints. The mother states otherwise. The mother's account refers to one usher approaching her and mentioning that an audience member found her and her baby 'distracting'.

You have to make a conscious decision to discount in its entirety the statement of the mother. What makes you do that?

While you're mulling that over, please bear in mind that you are using the word 'witness' here in a sense that extends its meaning to 'people who heard it from others who themselves may or may not have seen or heard what happened'.

Math - The other bee in the bonnet remark of mine was addressed to Elodie, who very clearly has issues where breastfeeding in public is concerned.

I have issues with women taking their baby to any show rated 14+ & the theatre staff who were stupid enough to let them in.
The woman did not take the baby out when if it started to cry.
To stay seated and proceed to try & calm the baby inside the auditorium Is selfish. I would have exactly the same issue if the woman was trying to soothe the crying child with breast, bottle, a can of coke or a bag of F'ing haribos.
Take your crying child outside into the lobby.

If you can find anything I have said that backs up your claim that I have a problem with BF publicly in general, please quote me.

The woman was asked to leave because of the crying, BF alone doesn't cause a disturbance. Obviously.
However, Math you are fixated on the BF issue. Way up thread other people tried to explain to you that there are places or situations where BF might not be appropriate. It might be legal to BF whilst abseiling down a cliff or at a (to quote another poster) slipknot concert but most people just wouldn't dream of doing it.
You just don't seem to understand that.
It is legal to breastfeed practically anywhere, but common sense tells you what is appropriate and what is not.

I don't know why I bothered to post that!
Math is doing a bit of courtroom role play on this thread!
We all need to get in role! Do we have any actual witnesses?!
(Math is obviously working for the defendant and will now proceed to put forward her next argument...)

Every single person there says the baby was screaming. The three people who complained said the baby was screaming. People I know personally who I know to be honest said the baby was screaming.

Therefore the baby was screaming.

I see no reason to invent elaborate conspiracy theories in which five unrelated people all spontaneously decided to tell the exact same lie out of some kind of bizarre vendetta against a stranger.

"You have to make a conscious decision to discount in its entirety the statement of the mother. What makes you do that?"

The fact that multiple eyewitnesses including someone I know well personally have said she is lying. I trust my close friend over a total stranger. She also obviously has an agenda and a good reason to lie.

I have quoted you several times now, Elodie.
Here is your post again:
As for BF in the auditorium... Don't get me started.
I would really love to know what your objection is to BFing in the auditorium.

Littleprincesssara, now you really are implying that you are clairvoyant. Either that or you have tracked down every single person there on the night and asked them for their recollections. Which one is it?

And again, ''I know someone who says no way did she hear a baby crying, let alone screaming, at the performance.' See how that works?"

You have quite a way with words. We go from the alleged word of three theatre goers plus one alleged theatre goer to 'multiple eyewitnesses'.

I see no reason to invent elaborate conspiracy theories in which five unrelated people all spontaneously decided to tell the exact same lie out of some kind of bizarre vendetta against a stranger.
Maybe this is because you believe all public venues are so friendly to breastfeeding mothers that there is no way any breastfeeding mother would be asked to leave for breastfeeding?

All of your 'reasons' not to believe this woman are just personal prejudices you are indulging, Francis.
People take their babies to places that are loud and hot all the time. Most of the world's babies live in loud, hot places.
My doctor's waiting room used to be heaving no matter what time we went, and not just that but lots of people would be coughing and clearly unwell. They had a TV on in the corner, volume set on high, to keep babies and children distracted with endless loops of Disney favourites. The TV replaced a Toy Corner that was Grand Central Station for germs.

She probably knew her own child better than you do, Francis, and most likely had good reason to expect her baby would not cause a disturbance. You may or may not believe this, but you really can take some babies places.

And you may not approve of the Daily Mail or of people who sell their accounts to it, but that is your own problem.

^Way up thread other people tried to explain to you that there are places or situations where BF might not be appropriate. It might be legal to BF whilst abseiling down a cliff or at a (to quote another poster) slipknot concert but most people just wouldn't dream of doing it.
You just don't seem to understand that.^

I saw that suggestion. I rolled my eyes at it.

Just because Cry and Die rhyme doesn't mean that a situation in which a baby might cry is equivalent to one where a baby might die.

It's not a comparison I would choose, based on the fact that one scenario is dangerous and one is not.

Please don't call me/my friend liars. I have first hand info and you don't. Period. I am basing my opinion on the facts. You are basis your opinion on a bias and a personal agenda.

"And again, ''I know someone who says no way did she hear a baby crying, let alone screaming, at the performance.' See how that works?"

Except not a single person has said that, anywhere...

You really can't post on an internet board of complete strangers about your 'friend' and expect to be believed.
You cannot base an opinion on second hand information whose source you cannot prove, at all, ever, and try to persuade someone that they should believe your version of events, because you really, really do have a 'friend' who was there.

If you persist in insisting you can do it, then so can I.

You have no way to prove that I do not have a friend who attended the theatre and sat close to this woman and her party and never heard a peep out of the baby.

As a matter of fact I really, really do have a friend who sat close to this woman and her party and never heard a peep out of the baby.
Can you prove otherwise?

Fine, live in cloud cuckoo land where breastfeeding mothers can do no wrong and women being asked to remove screaming babies are victims of elaborate conspiracies.

Thanks, I will continue - to live in the real world where nobody has ever got all hot under the collar at the cheek of a woman attempting to breastfeed and made a complaint that included the word 'distraction'.

No one was complaining about the breast feeding. They were complaining about the noise being made by the baby.

The use of the word 'distraction ' would be a very appropriate way to describe the effect of a crying or screaming baby in the audience of a West End adult show. So it's use doesn't make the complaints more likely to be from the anti breastfeeding camp.