Pregnant Woman Told To Leave Pub

[stinkymonkey]

the nanny state continues

I can understand where the landlord is coming from, though I don't agree with what she did.

It is not illegal to refuse service to anyone. For any reason.

However, if someone feels that they have been refused on the basis of race, disability etc, then they can make a complaint.

A pregnant woman who made a complaint about not being served due to being pregnant would not be looked very highly upon in a court, for surely anyone with common sense would see that the reasons for refusal are valid.

Anyway, she wasn't refused initial service, she was refused further drinks. And then sat drinking her friends drink. Does nobody else think this is cheeky, immature and irresponsible?

I can't say it enough times... doing this is breaking the law.

no question to answer.you are crudely attempting to digress and argue a wholly different point.

perhaps you likey the arguing?
i like sticking to the point

been round the MN block enough to not get drawn on the big provocative MN Ishoos

"Goods, facilities and services

It is against the law for anyone providing goods, facilities or services to discriminate on grounds of sex by refusing to provide them, or to discriminate in the way in which they are provided. It is also against the law to discriminate in this way against transsexual people or against women because of their pregnancy or maternity. It doesn't matter whether the goods, services or facilities are provided for payment or free."

www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/discrimination/taking_action_about_sex_dis crimination.htm

Seems fairly clear to me. It's discrimination.

DSM - against an individual no. But if it's clear that that is on the grounds of their sex, race, disability... then it's discrimination, which is illegal

yes, DSM, we've got that bit.

But she shouldn't have been refused her second drink in the first place.

I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right or anything, but she should NOT have been refused her second drink. The fact that she was refused a second drink was discrimination against her on the grounds of her pregnancy and therefore her sex and is against the law.

Would you recommend that a restaurant refused to serve a pregnant woman with pate if she ordered it as a starter?

You are deliberately avoiding the point SM.

The point here isn't breastfeeding, it isn't a MN "ishoo". It's about whether women are allowed to make choices in pregnancy and parenting, without random idiots setting themselves up as their personal police officers.

But by all means, trivialise it and pretend it's just about me being argumentative. You obviously don't want to engage with that argument. Please don't try and pretend it's therefore not a valid one though.

i have empahatically said i wont digress into BF as it is imo unrelated and no not valid to the gist of the thread.i wont contribute to that particular off tangent topic

A licencee is not allowed to serve a person drink to dangerous levels. What consitutes a dangerous level is not clear as a lot depends on the weight and the sex of the person. Biologically we are not all created equal.

Ie. It takes less units to land a 7 stone woman in hospital with alchol poisoning than a 20 stone male rugby player. Some people are total light weights where as some people can down large amounts and appear to have no ill affects.

I think the publican is in a no win situation. If he/ she allows the pregnant woman to get drunk then he/she could face criminal charges, large fines as well as losing their licence. If he doesn't serve the pregnant woman then he/she is accused of discrimination.

But surely, regardless of what we all think they are not allowed to discriminate!

Licensees are under obligation from the social responsibility standards for the production and sale of alcoholic drinks, and can make decisions based on avoiding any actions that encourage or condone illegal, irresponsible or immoderate drinking.

Drinking when pregnant is classed in the bill as irresponsible drinking.

This is from the bill:

Regular consumption of between 2 and 3 units a day by women of all ages (excluding pregnant women) will not accrue any significant health risk. Anything over and above this may contribute to health problems.

Pregnant women are advised that any amount of alcohol can accrue a significant health risk, and as such are exempt from inclusion.

Refusing service to a woman who is pregnant does not construe sexual discrimination as the act in itself is deemed irresponsible.

oh in that case...

Right - that seems to contradict the stuff I found entirely. Weird.

It is not unrelated.

It is all about mothers risk assessing a situation, making a choice and then having that choice questioned/ criticised/ held up as disgraceful by some random member of the public who has a big mouth and a small risk assessment capacity, but a big sense of entitlement that s/he has the right to voice his / her ill-informed opinions when confronted with a mother. It is not unrelated at all IMO.

I might like to point out that it has just occurred to me that I am referencing my Scottish literature, whereas this took place in Brighton?

The law may well be different, though I would be surprised if it was significantly different..

Really LitteBella?
So, when do you think that the 'random member of the public' is allowed to step in?
What is a mother risk-assesses a situation, and a child ends up being abused? Should she not have this choice questioned or criticised? Would someone who spoke up then have a 'big mouth and a small risk assessment capacity'?

Are we not allowed to care for the welfare of unborn children?

Of course we're allowed to care for their welfare.

But a pregnant woman having a glass of beer in a pub is not necessarily a sign that their welfare is being compromised.

Anymore than a worn down, frustrated shouty Mum at a Sainsbury's counter, is a sign of an abusive family.

I hadn't seen that bit of legislation, DSM, so it may well be that the law in Scotland is slightly different to that in England (it is in a lot of things so it makes sense that this would be as well) and as I think I mentioned earlier, I do hold a personal license and have done courses on licensing law and have worked in the trade for a good many years.

I have also done plenty of work with the Every Child Matters agenda and have attended courses on safeguarding children, so I do know a little bit about both sides of this matter.

I still say that the licensee was totally out of order in refusing that second drink.

Ooh, interesting Squonk. I too hold a personal license, have been on many a (boring) course and have worked in the trade for 9 years. I think we can safely assume that the laws in Scotland and England must be different!

And whilst I probably wouldn't have refused her the second drink, I still don't think that the comments attributed to the licensee who did are fair, nor justified.

And, I am imagining the bigger picture - the article says that she was refused the second drink, and then proceeded to drink her friends drink.

Not only would that piss me off as it is downright cheeky, but it also struck me as immature and irresponsible, and from then, TBH, I took the side of the landlord.

I agree it's a bit odd and naff that she drank her friend's drink.

In that situation, were I the friend, I would leave with the woman in question, I wouldn't buy another drink. Why would I want to sit there drinking when my friend had been refused a drink?

But anyway, that's the etiquette angle, which the thread hasn't generally gone down. And I'm orf to bed, good night.

had I been either the pregnant woman, or one of her party, I would have left the pub and gone somewhere else.

In fact, if we're being reasonable here (and why the hell should we be, we're mumsnetters fgs!) perhaps the entire party planned on leaving as she had been refused a drink and she had a sip of her mate's drink whilst she was waiting for them all to finish their own.

maybe

SGM: so how do you feel about the effects of bad diet due to poverty on a pregnancy? Or how about being subject to domestic violence (which commonly starts or increases in pregnancy)? There are all sorts of factors that may adversely affect a pregnancy, but actually moderate drinking is one of the least problematic ones - it's just that it suits the general woman-bashing, poor-bashing powerful people to make a big deal out of blaming women and therefore justifying attempts to restrict and control them. Consumption of alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs are a risk factor in pregnancy but it is still up to the pregnant woman to make her own decisions as to what risks she feels are acceptable. Even if she is so fried from drug and alcohol abuse that she is not really capable of making a coherent decision, if The State doesn;t have the right to force her into abstinence on her own account (because her own health is at risk), the state does not have the right to force her into abstinence on the grounds that she is pregnant.

Some of the comments on the webpage were . Personally I don't think she should have been drinking during pg but equally I defend her right to choose to drink.

I went out (to a student club) when I was about 7mo pg and was 'allowed' one red bull by my friends to give me energy. If I'd tried to buy alcohol, they would have physically stopped me. I had great difficulty though in persuading the staff in one pub that I only wanted an orange juice with no alcohol in it whatosever - it was a student night in a university town with shots for about £1 so most people were pouring it down their throats. I can only guess that the bar staff were singularly unobservant or didn't really care I was carrying all before me as it were. That was also a rare night out for me.

Maybe this lady needs to pick her pubs more carefully.

SGM: Oh I agree on guidelines (as long as they are based on some sort of proper peer-reviewed scientific study and not, as the UK guidelines on alcohol-units-per-week-for-non-PG-adults, completely made up out of the blue with no consideration for body mass and therefore fundamentally sexist). Provision of proper information about all health issues is important, but so much of what is provided is actually about serving one vested interest or another (eat 'low-fat' food: this is purely a sop to the food-processing industry, 'low-fat' versions of most foods are far more unhealthy than the unfuckedup food itself eaten in moderation).

Really interesting thread. I think the landlady was bang out of order.

We were in a casino one night and my heavily pregnant friend was with us. We were all drinking vodka and lemonade and my friend drank lemonade, no vodka (she had had a small glass of wine earlier with our meal and was made to feel bad enough at that by the bloody restaurant staff). You should have seen the dirty looks she got from people around us. One woman actually had the cheek to say quite loudly "look at that girl, in a casino and drinking whilst pregnant"

My friend was really upset and , we never said anything to the woman at the time but afterwards we wished we had said something, mainly that it's none of her effing business who is in a bloody casino and who is drinking or not, looks like vodka but it isn't and even if it was, its STILL not your bloody business!!

And another thing, we weren't even gambling, we were only there as we'd gotten some free drinks token thingamys handed to us earlier in a different place. I'm guessing if that woman had her way, my friend would not have been in the casino at all!