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!!!

Absolutely stop trying to make it about breastfeeding. It isn't at all. Anyone remember the 'Primark incident?' The Woman completely fabricated an assault. Thousands of women feed their babies every single day and no one bats an eyelid. I'll become of them again and a few months. Breastfeeding has never been more popukar and ourvrights are protected in law. This story isn't about Breastfeeding though.

I really hope this woman doesn't receive a pay out of any sort.
I would've to see the table turn and have this woman exposed for the entitled attention seeking person she so obviously is.
What normal person turns up at a show with a young baby and ruins the experiencefor others?

Laughing at the defiant stroppyt look on the sister's face. It's so contrived and staged.

Is the mail finally moving away from 'sad face' mode?

the show said no one under 14 .they should never have let the baby in she is just a chancer .she cant just do what she likes and take baby because she breast feeds

I found it interesting that the advertised 'child friendly' matinee performance of Cats that I took my DS to had no incidents of disruptive children at all. Whereas there have been some evening performances of more adult targetted theatre and had disruptive children there. Perhaps there is a correlation between the people who think that a child friendly matinee screaming is the appropriate choice, whereas those 'I've got every right to go where I want to' types did not choose the child friendly performances and inflicted their offspring on other people instead.

It's not a punk show.

Ticket prices are between £20 and £65.

Someone I know was there - the baby was screaming and she refused to temporarily take it to the lobby. Nothing to do with breastfeeding.

The plot thickens ...fully prepared for math to say your lying little

I'm a fan of taking babies loads of places.

But anywhere that states not suitable for under 14's is a no no to those under 14

Starting to wonder if math is or knows the woman in question
Or just really does lack any sense ( or a really gf)

I was referring to the vicious comments on the theatre's FB page when I said how gobsmacked I was.

Was anyone else struck by that or was it just me?

Lass, the cost was not irrelevant to the issue when others were talking about spending £200 on tickets and making out that this woman was therefore being an utter knob.

'I'm Louis, the Executive Director of the Arts. I'd like to meet you to discuss this occurance [sic] and learn more about what happened. Our policy is extremely supportive of breastfeeding so I'd like to know what went wrong on this occasion'
Unless they are expecting a bunch of breastfed 15 year olds to show up with mums in tow, I don't see how they can claim to be supportive of breastfeeding and still enforce an under 14 ban. Are they supportive in the abstract? Is supportive in the abstract really supportive? And will a statement about supporting breastfeeding encourage breastfeeding women to attend theatre shows?

The theatre let her in, and I am assuming the baby was quiet and peaceful enough at the point where they showed their tickets to make this look like a reasonable decision.

Within ten minutes of the start of the show they changed their minds. She says her baby wore ear defenders and was being bopped on her lap and then was fed. No mention of screaming. Someone who wasn't there and got his information second hand from the front of house manager claims there was a disturbance. She claims she sat away from others. We know the show is loud. One song had already been performed at the point where she was asked to leave. She says the person who asked her to leave mentioned one person who said she was 'distracting'. The theatre now claims three people complained about a 'disturbance'.

This baby must have a spectacular set of lungs to have made herself heard over 'American Idiot'...

Many people here are sure for some reason that it is the women who is lying. Why is that?

math - perhaps because her side of the story - I person - contradicts the story of both the venue and all the theatre goers who complained - why do you think it's easier to believe all of them were lying?! She admits herself the baby wasn't sitting quietly wearing ear defenders but was wriggling around and trying to take them off.

Most of us have friends and family, which means we don't have to do things like go to the theatre alone. That means that you have usually paid for more than one ticket. So £50 per ticket = £100 or £200 quite easily. That's not small change to most people.

The theatre being fine about breast feeding... Yes, it was. It let her and the baby in and were perfectly prepared for her to have a lovely time at the theatre as long as she didn't cause a disturbance, WHICH SHE DID. The theatre doesn't ban under 15s, it says the show content is suited to 14+.

It is pointless trying to reason with you as your self-righteous snobbery is clearly just too ingrained so I will be leaving this thread now.

Problem is mum/baby thrown out for crying and being disturbing doesn't have quite the same headline as being thrown out for breastfeeding..

No mention of screaming.

Um, no.

This baby must have a spectacular set of lungs to have made herself heard over 'American Idiot'...

Have you seen it?

So just because the theatre don't want a baby disrupting a performance for others then they aren't fine about breast feeding
How about the mother should have thought about where she was bringing her baby?
Maybe people think she's lying because they've had kids
They aren't quiet when they want feeding!
Also, some people who have commented on other sites were actually there...
The theatre were happy to let her in, till the baby wasn't quiet ( baby being a completely normal baby).
Not an appropriate place to take a baby full stop, nothing to do with breast feeding.
Now claiming discrimination and wants to sue. Disgrace.

Sorry - you don't take a baby into a theatre. Or a cinema, for that matter - that's why they have parent and baby screenings. Just ridiculous. Hopefully the theatre will have learned its lesson and will enforce a strict no infants in the auditorium policy from now on.....

At our local theatre and many I've been to in London they gave a guide on appropriate age when you buy the tickets. I feel that the theatre need to change its policy's and also that this woman is a chancer and over entitled as well. They are both in the wrong.
I'm glad my kids are old enough now to go to later shows and cinema as this sort of thing is getting more and more common

I was at ballet once and a idiot mother had taken an 18mth old who was up and down like a yo yo. I complained and was given free tickets to another event of choice but it still spoilt the ballet for me which was a one of performance
Drive me insane!!!!!!!

I have seen clips of it and have also read reviews. Are you suggesting it's a quiet, contemplative sort of production?

We don't know that there were three complaining theatre-goers. None of them have identified themselves. We have the word of the Creative Director, BB Hook who claims to have heard it from the front of house manager. Meanwhile, the mother claims she was approached by an usher who told her someone was finding her baby distracting.

The executive director (Hartshorn) wrote on FB that he wanted to talk to Ms Lucas to find out what had happened.

So I don't think it is a given that anyone representing the theatre who has posted about this so far actually knows what happened.

Lass, the cost was not irrelevant to the issue when others were talking about spending £200 on tickets and making out that this woman was therefore being an utter knob

The cost is irrelevant. Entirely irrelevant.

This stupid, selfish woman turned up at a theatre at a show which was not intended for children because she is too lazy, stupid and selfish to organise child care.She is a complete chancer. It has nothing to do with breastfeeding. Anyone with half a brain would not take a child that age to a theatre unless it was a show aimed at small children. It is a huge pity the staff were kind enough to let her in in the first place.

The Edinburgh Festival is on at the moment. I've been to loads of shows including a fully staged opera which cost £120. It was not suitable for children;2 Fringe plays at £15 and £10- neither were suitable for children and both would have been spoiled if noisy and disruptive children were there. No babies were present at any of these. On the other hand the juggling show, which was clearly ticketed as having no age restriction , was full of children, who were having a great time.

What the hell does "quiet and contemplative" have to do with it? I was at a concert performance of Das Rheingold l (£35).Does it fail or pass your bizarre test of whether babies should be allowed in? As it was not that expensive and very loud most of the time?

Your sneering because it was only "£50" is snobbish and unpleasant.

Omg ofcourse the theatre wrote that message!
She complained to the media!
Any company no matter if they were in the right will try to smooth things over!
Is that really your argument

We don't know that there were three complaining theatre-goers.

Yes, we do. It's ludicrous to invent a story wherein the entire theatre staff have colluded to commit fraud by inventing three entirely fictitious audience members, when there were hundreds of people present who could easily debunk it.

The baby was screaming, the mother refused to temporarily retire to the lobby, three people complained that it was distracting. Not a single person has contradicted this sequence of events, apart from the woman herself.

There's actually been at least one poster on this thread math (not sure if it's 2 people or the same one posting twice) who has spoken to someone who was there and confirmed that the child was noisy.

The 2 statements from the theatre make perfect sense to me.

Boss #1 issues a statement based on the story told to him by his staff. Boss #2, in the interests of fairness, offers Ms Lucas a meeting to hear her side of the story and discuss. (Which she ignores btw) - no contradiction there.

Oh and btw I am also 52, bf my DC back in the day (he's 30 now ffs how did that happen? ), support the right to bf, went to punk gigs in '78-79, have a brother who still plays guitar in a "name" punk band and have seen American Idiot, albeit in Manchester not the West End, so I hope my credentials to post meet your exacting standard.......

math have you bothered reading the quote from the theatre that someone posted above? That the child was screaming and distracting?

Or is it more important that because it's a show not to your taste as not 'proper' punk that who gives a fuck that people might have paid £££ to attend? I mean, I love ballet which is certainly not rowdy, I'd still be upset if I paid good money for it to be ruined by a baby screaming.

I'm not sure what the relevance of people identifying themselves as complaining is either. When would or has that ever happened?

It is amazing how much you know about this woman, Lass.
'...she is too lazy, stupid and selfish to organise child care...a complete chancer...'

I am not 'sneering' at the fact that it was £50 a ticket (average), merely pointing out to those on this thread who were trying to suggest the tickets might have cost £200 that they were significantly off. Why would you exaggerate the possible cost of a ticket if not to make this woman appear like the last word in self absorption?
Why are people so hostile that they think they can throw any kind of shit at her?
Is this a sense of entitlement that I am seeing?

Re: 'quiet and contemplative (not)' - I am wondering how they heard the baby over the din.

We do not in fact 'know' that three people complained. It has been claimed that three people complained. The Creative Director, who posted this claim, got this information second hand. Meanwhile, further down the FB thread, the Executive Director wants to find out the facts from the audience member who was ejected. Both the Creative Director and the Executive Director posted on the same FB thread, apparently without consulting each other. A case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and actually the left hand depending on someone else's allegation. Disarray prevails, in other words. Not surprising form from a theatre whose front of house employees apparently had sufficient power vested in them to allow someone in with a baby, despite the age limit (and which apparently has two Bosses, itself a recipe for disaster when it comes time to make important statements.)
There's actually been at least one poster on this thread math (not sure if it's 2 people or the same one posting twice) who has spoken to someone who was there and confirmed that the child was noisy.
We are very ready to believe people who are not breastfeeding mothers who brought their baby to a theatre, aren't we?

My references to punk have clearly gone right over your head, Felicia. Yes indeed I have read the Creative Director's (BB Hook's) statement. He got his 'information' from someone else. He did not see or hear the baby.

who told her someone was finding her baby distracting.

Her baby was distracting. Not her boobs.